First of all, let me clarify who “good” people are. They are those who adhere to the wisdom which says, don’t do to others what you don’t like to be done with yourself, and things like that. At a more sophisticated level, good people are those who want to become paragons of righteousness; and at a highest, delusional level, those who are striving to become perfect (morally). These people always have, and always will, suffer more than the average.
Wait a minute. It’s not only the good people such as those described above, but also those who are “too bad” who suffer more than the average. But since the bad getting bad isn’t counterintuitive, it doesn’t startle us to see it. What is disheartening to see is the good people suffering more than the ordinary people. Why is that?
It’s simply because the Universe doesn’t favor good or bad, but the fittest. The Universe is designed to favor the fittest. Remember the survival of the fittest? The only (or the ultimate) systematic and meaningful process going on in the Universe is evolution, and whatever experiences we are ever put through in life have the only ultimate goal: Evolution. But sadly, this goal is not “our” goal. We are least concerned with the evolution of the species. We are concerned with our own life, our own wellbeing. But that is never there in the Universe’s agenda.
The constant struggle that all of us are put through in life owes itself to this very conflict of agenda. Unlike other less-conscious animals, we human beings have the brain so developed that we have come up with our own interests, distinct from those of the Universe’s.
The Universe is a self-improving system. A self-improving system only works through the interaction of conflicting forces. Those conflicting forces, within us, are our intellect and biological instincts. While intellect (rationality) is what makes us distinct from other less conscious animals, our biological instincts are for the most part the same as that of the other animals. We can aptly call them “animal instincts”.
The animal instincts are largely responsible for all the “bad” behavior. Sexual desire, the desire for power and domination, for greatness and superiority etc all fall under the animal nature, which is not wrong, just “bad”.
The intellect-driven rational mind sees that these animal instincts, when not controlled, make life miserable for us. If everybody started giving way to their animal instincts, our world won’t remain different from the jungle-life. So, we should live a controlled, not animalistic, life with peace, which is advantageous on the whole for all of us. But the downside of the controlled life is that there has to be “control”. When we control some innate force, there will inevitably be suffering. The more “good” we become, that is, the more we listen to our rational mind, the more control we have to exercise; and the more control over the innate forces will bring more suffering. Something feels empty, something’s lacking, when any of our innate forces is thwarted.
On the other side, if people won’t put a restraint over their animal instincts, that will also lead to suffering. Because then we would all be fighting like wild animals and it would be the physical-power-ruled world. Less conscious animals probably don’t suffer (psychologically) in that life because their brain is simply not developed enough to find anything wrong in that kind of life. But since we have got this rational mind, when we would be living like wild animals, we would be aware of it; we would be aware that there’s a better way to be. We would be aware that we can end this wildness and be peaceful by listening to our rational mind and striking a mutual agreement among people. This nagging awareness would make our animalistic life miserable and push us toward the controlled living.
There you see the conflict? Uncontrolled life has suffering because when everybody lives that way, no one gains. All suffer. Controlled life has suffering because control itself brings suffering.
Here the life assumes a game-theoretic nature.
What will be the win-win case? What if in the world where everybody observes highest level of control, you get a chance to live a life of very less control? (Well, because if you live totally uncontrolled, animalistic life then you will be spotted and killed by the moral society. E.g. criminals, sociopaths etc.) Say, you teach everyone morality, publicly favor morality, but secretly break the rules. So while everybody observes the morality (and is out of your way thereby) you comfortably feed your animal nature!
Smells of the very familiar double-standards? We all have seen people playing double-standards, and probably also have whined a lot about it. It’s nothing but the game-theoretic psychological approach described above. What’s even more surprising, it happens intuitively. If you introspect hard enough, I am sure you will see yourself also more or less playing the game of double-standards (if you are not “very good”, that is; in which case you are suffering like hell for sure). On the face of it, it looks like a repulsive thing. But the happiest of people are those who play it best and most effortlessly.
From individual level, right through the national level, those with this kind of double-standards are the fittest, most intelligent agents for the Universe, and the Universe will favor them the most with wellbeing.
Talk about individual level. In the society with most controlled (virtuous) life everybody will believe that sex (talking about sex, for sex is the most fundamental cause of human miseries) is to be done only after the marriage, and only with the person one is married to. They will be sex-deprived all their golden age of life, and probably even after the marriage if their partner turns out unsatisfying. Suffering that is! On the other hand, in the society with least controlled life (in context of sex alone we are talking here) where everybody is free about sex it will be hard to find a lasting sex partner, just like animals. Think of how excruciating it will be when our sophisticated psychological needs (life-companionship, for example, which animals don’t have) will not be met because people aren’t ready to control their animal instincts. Result: Suffering! Out of these two, of course the controlled life is more human, and has to be achieved first. Now enter the double-standard player in the controlled, moral, virtuous world. He will always talk about the importance of control, faithfulness, more-human-less-animal-ness etc, so as not to be outcast; but at the same time he will cheat wherever he gets an easy chance, and tend to keep it a secret. Of course, sometimes he will be caught and punished too, but on the whole he would live happier than the controlled people. Because — wait for it — he is the fittest, most intelligent, person for the Universe; remaining in best psychological health by enjoying the best of both worlds, and propagating his genes the most by sleeping with numerous women, which is what is best for the evolution – the ultimate agenda of the Universe!
That’s the reason why “good” people suffer more than the average. The Universe doesn’t favor "good" people!
These double-standard ones are the average people – who believe in God, are religious; and at the same time are not keeping from all the “enjoyment” that their religion denies (sex, drinking, bullying-the-weak, arrogance etc). They talk of virtues, but have not the strength (rather, willingness) enough to live up to the highest of them. They talk of ideals, but when caught doing the wrong, plead by saying they are just humans, imperfect, what to do. They won’t advocate animalistic life, but can’t resist it too. They sin, for they are “only humans”, and then they confess it to God and that’s it. Go on living… repeat. Getting the picture? See the average human being around of you?
These people are not wrong; just “bad” (in the eyes of a controlled, virtue-adherent “good” human being). Bad, by our definitions of good and bad; which are fundamentally flawed because they aren’t in accord with the Universe’s design, but with our own purposes (like struggle-free life) which, sadly, can’t ever be served; because struggle-free life means the doom for the evolution! Our world can’t function regardless of the Universe’s agenda. Our goals, hence, are eternally to be in conflict with the Universe’s way of functioning.
--
Note that this is a very, very complex issue to talk about. In this article I have simplified it to a great extent. The actual amount of thought-data in my mind is much greater than I have tried to put down here.
Will conclude with some random thoughts I have had recently that are relevant to the subject —
Wait a minute. It’s not only the good people such as those described above, but also those who are “too bad” who suffer more than the average. But since the bad getting bad isn’t counterintuitive, it doesn’t startle us to see it. What is disheartening to see is the good people suffering more than the ordinary people. Why is that?
It’s simply because the Universe doesn’t favor good or bad, but the fittest. The Universe is designed to favor the fittest. Remember the survival of the fittest? The only (or the ultimate) systematic and meaningful process going on in the Universe is evolution, and whatever experiences we are ever put through in life have the only ultimate goal: Evolution. But sadly, this goal is not “our” goal. We are least concerned with the evolution of the species. We are concerned with our own life, our own wellbeing. But that is never there in the Universe’s agenda.
The constant struggle that all of us are put through in life owes itself to this very conflict of agenda. Unlike other less-conscious animals, we human beings have the brain so developed that we have come up with our own interests, distinct from those of the Universe’s.
The Universe is a self-improving system. A self-improving system only works through the interaction of conflicting forces. Those conflicting forces, within us, are our intellect and biological instincts. While intellect (rationality) is what makes us distinct from other less conscious animals, our biological instincts are for the most part the same as that of the other animals. We can aptly call them “animal instincts”.
The animal instincts are largely responsible for all the “bad” behavior. Sexual desire, the desire for power and domination, for greatness and superiority etc all fall under the animal nature, which is not wrong, just “bad”.
The intellect-driven rational mind sees that these animal instincts, when not controlled, make life miserable for us. If everybody started giving way to their animal instincts, our world won’t remain different from the jungle-life. So, we should live a controlled, not animalistic, life with peace, which is advantageous on the whole for all of us. But the downside of the controlled life is that there has to be “control”. When we control some innate force, there will inevitably be suffering. The more “good” we become, that is, the more we listen to our rational mind, the more control we have to exercise; and the more control over the innate forces will bring more suffering. Something feels empty, something’s lacking, when any of our innate forces is thwarted.
On the other side, if people won’t put a restraint over their animal instincts, that will also lead to suffering. Because then we would all be fighting like wild animals and it would be the physical-power-ruled world. Less conscious animals probably don’t suffer (psychologically) in that life because their brain is simply not developed enough to find anything wrong in that kind of life. But since we have got this rational mind, when we would be living like wild animals, we would be aware of it; we would be aware that there’s a better way to be. We would be aware that we can end this wildness and be peaceful by listening to our rational mind and striking a mutual agreement among people. This nagging awareness would make our animalistic life miserable and push us toward the controlled living.
There you see the conflict? Uncontrolled life has suffering because when everybody lives that way, no one gains. All suffer. Controlled life has suffering because control itself brings suffering.
Here the life assumes a game-theoretic nature.
What will be the win-win case? What if in the world where everybody observes highest level of control, you get a chance to live a life of very less control? (Well, because if you live totally uncontrolled, animalistic life then you will be spotted and killed by the moral society. E.g. criminals, sociopaths etc.) Say, you teach everyone morality, publicly favor morality, but secretly break the rules. So while everybody observes the morality (and is out of your way thereby) you comfortably feed your animal nature!
Smells of the very familiar double-standards? We all have seen people playing double-standards, and probably also have whined a lot about it. It’s nothing but the game-theoretic psychological approach described above. What’s even more surprising, it happens intuitively. If you introspect hard enough, I am sure you will see yourself also more or less playing the game of double-standards (if you are not “very good”, that is; in which case you are suffering like hell for sure). On the face of it, it looks like a repulsive thing. But the happiest of people are those who play it best and most effortlessly.
From individual level, right through the national level, those with this kind of double-standards are the fittest, most intelligent agents for the Universe, and the Universe will favor them the most with wellbeing.
Talk about individual level. In the society with most controlled (virtuous) life everybody will believe that sex (talking about sex, for sex is the most fundamental cause of human miseries) is to be done only after the marriage, and only with the person one is married to. They will be sex-deprived all their golden age of life, and probably even after the marriage if their partner turns out unsatisfying. Suffering that is! On the other hand, in the society with least controlled life (in context of sex alone we are talking here) where everybody is free about sex it will be hard to find a lasting sex partner, just like animals. Think of how excruciating it will be when our sophisticated psychological needs (life-companionship, for example, which animals don’t have) will not be met because people aren’t ready to control their animal instincts. Result: Suffering! Out of these two, of course the controlled life is more human, and has to be achieved first. Now enter the double-standard player in the controlled, moral, virtuous world. He will always talk about the importance of control, faithfulness, more-human-less-animal-ness etc, so as not to be outcast; but at the same time he will cheat wherever he gets an easy chance, and tend to keep it a secret. Of course, sometimes he will be caught and punished too, but on the whole he would live happier than the controlled people. Because — wait for it — he is the fittest, most intelligent, person for the Universe; remaining in best psychological health by enjoying the best of both worlds, and propagating his genes the most by sleeping with numerous women, which is what is best for the evolution – the ultimate agenda of the Universe!
That’s the reason why “good” people suffer more than the average. The Universe doesn’t favor "good" people!
These double-standard ones are the average people – who believe in God, are religious; and at the same time are not keeping from all the “enjoyment” that their religion denies (sex, drinking, bullying-the-weak, arrogance etc). They talk of virtues, but have not the strength (rather, willingness) enough to live up to the highest of them. They talk of ideals, but when caught doing the wrong, plead by saying they are just humans, imperfect, what to do. They won’t advocate animalistic life, but can’t resist it too. They sin, for they are “only humans”, and then they confess it to God and that’s it. Go on living… repeat. Getting the picture? See the average human being around of you?
These people are not wrong; just “bad” (in the eyes of a controlled, virtue-adherent “good” human being). Bad, by our definitions of good and bad; which are fundamentally flawed because they aren’t in accord with the Universe’s design, but with our own purposes (like struggle-free life) which, sadly, can’t ever be served; because struggle-free life means the doom for the evolution! Our world can’t function regardless of the Universe’s agenda. Our goals, hence, are eternally to be in conflict with the Universe’s way of functioning.
--
Note that this is a very, very complex issue to talk about. In this article I have simplified it to a great extent. The actual amount of thought-data in my mind is much greater than I have tried to put down here.
Will conclude with some random thoughts I have had recently that are relevant to the subject —
- Everyone who’s living by intuition is living with double standards (just like Nature itself). When one becomes “aware” of it, and tries to become “perfect”, that’s where one blunders.
- Life happens through imperfection. Perfection is death.
- One should be intelligent enough to form one’s principles and wise enough to know they can be broken at times.
- When the ugly guy stares at a woman, he is pervert; when the hot guy does, he is interested.
"The Universe is designed to favor the fittest."
ReplyDeleteActually, human beings evolved to cooperate, have empathy and to engage in mutual aid. Many animals have. These are features that help us survive.
So I disagree with your premise.
I'm pretty sure there are other issues at work here that you're not considering.
Interesting perspective. If, however, there is a God who calls men and women to rise above their animal nature, exercise their rational nature, and develop virtue, with the goal of achieving communion with that God, following such a path leads to joy and happiness in the midst of suffering.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, Greg. There is no god who calls for that.
ReplyDelete@George Donnelly,
ReplyDeleteI do understand that it is way more complex. I will try to be simpler.
Do you believe Radical Honesty (never ever lying) would work? It would probably make the world fall apart, for if people talked their true thoughts all the time, relationships would become impossible. So, lying to an extent isn't bad. BUT, still, don't we view (and always agree with) honesty as a virtue? Don't we always favor being honest as against being dishonest? Does anyone declare that one is not being honest in certain situations? (Which is, in fact, TRUE for everyone.) No. We don't say that openly. To the smart of the people, it's implied. Those to clarify it all the time, that they don't be honest in all cases, are naive; because they will arouse suspicions in the minds of those they deal with as to weather they are being honest "now", and people would rather choose to disengage with them because of this shadiness. As against this, if we just let it be implied, that "honestly is a virtue, definitely; but there are exceptional cases too where lying is the right thing", and thus operate with double-standards (keeping on the side of 100% honestly publicly, and privately respecting those exceptional cases' needs) we can maintain our relations the best.
Hope you will get an idea of what I am suggesting. I am not suggesting to be "bad" as in anti-social kinda way. But "bad" to an extent it is required to keep things as friction-less as possible.
From the article --
These people are not wrong; just “bad” (in the eyes of a controlled, virtue-adherent “good” human being).
See "The Road Less Traveled" by M. Scott Peck.
ReplyDeleteGood people suffer more because they better recognize the magnitude of problems.
If everyone was a universally cooperative, then we wouldn't have any problems. Unfortunately, defectors do exist.
ReplyDeleteI still want to be a Kantian, but I don't know if it's advisable. I'm working on a synthesis - but steering clear of Hegel.
@Anonymous
ReplyDelete//...because they better recognize the magnitude of problems.//
That's true. Now, some problems are such that they don't have solutions. The world is always imperfect. So, to be TOO GOOD (in the sense of striving to be perfect -- as is stated in the beginning of the article -- with hope of getting things right) is to bang one's head on the rock, which but causes suffering. The trick is to accept one's imperfection, and still appear to be trying (for otherwise people would distrust one's intentions.) Or keep trying, but with minimal seriousness.
Example: Don't we see some people worry about environment and still own vehicles (and other things harming the environment)? If those owning vehicles declared that they give a damn about the environment they would probably scoffed at.
The point is, we humans intuitively live with double standards. We show concern about highest ethics; and we act to the contrary when our interest it at stake. For that is the optimal strategy, our biology "knows" it -- through experience, perhaps. Some people are hardcore adherents of virtues and principles; they end up becoming misanthrope. Needless to say, they suffer.
This is taking an over-simplified view. Virtue is ultimately a very successful survival strategy, and one that generally sees those practicing it collectively succeed over those who do not. The reason why is the prevalence of prisoner's dilemma style situations in the world. A selfish actor will defect every time, obtaining the locally optimal result for them. A virtuous actor will accept the possibility of detriment in order to create a greater globally optimal outcome. When everyone is virtuous, they them suffer much less than the selfish.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that not everyone is virtuous - we get free riders aiming for the Cooperate/defect payout. This will either devalue the system until it performs as bad as the selfish system, with everyone defecting, or defences will be evolved against defectors. And the latter is the case - we have additional behaviours whose purpose is to punish or discourage defectors. Notions like "justice" and social traits that reward cooperators and punish defectors to the point where the strategy payoff matrix drops. This essentially establishes an equilibrium, where the level of parasitism stays around the level where the risk/reward ratio balances out.
So really, how good a strategy virtue is depends on where this equilibrium is set. And this will depend on exactly how effective our defector-punishment and virtue-rewarding systems are, which in turn depends on how our society and culture is structured. These are not fixed values.
@Anonymous
ReplyDelete//When everyone is virtuous, they them suffer much less than the selfish.//
That's absolutely true. I don't disagree with it. But you yourself also acknowledge the fact that --
//The problem is that not everyone is virtuous.//
And there is the thing. I do not dispute virtue. My point is just that the highest virtuous position causes one to suffer more than the average. How, then, one wants to live is one's own choice.
Ideally, of course, one should strive to be virtuous, but when the negative payoff one gets causes too much of suffering, that's when this understanding might come to rescue.
I like what you're saying here. For example, I love Kantian ethics, but I don't think they're ultimately practical (and trust me I'm not a fan of practicality over ethic duty as most of us use practicality as an excuse to avoid duty) and people aren't disinterested moral agents. There is a difference between what is and what should be. The universe is ultimately uncaring and uninterested in morals, yet we should have them (I believe they are a solely human constucion, animals don't really have morals but some do have communities which may suggest otherwise, I don't know, I'm not a biologist). My point is this, morals help with the quality of life, which I think you can agree with and yet they seem to harm us and our own interests at times, almost by neccessity. To look at it from a purely utilitarian point of view, happiness is the end goal of morality, but happiness in and of itself isn't enough. For example, capital punishment may make everyone happier to bring clousre and as an example setting device, but does that make it right to kill a person say if they were innocent? Sure that one person is getting screwed over and isn't happy but everyone else is, problem solved, it is moral to make everyone happier by convicting the innocent to death. My point is this, morals and justice are inherently disinterested in things such as happiness, that is not the measure of what makes something right or wrong in and of itself. Kant had many things right and of course being a truly moral agent is going to mean putting our own interests aside for the good of others. But Kant also had another good point, if we live in a more moral world we too will benefit when another puts aside their interests for our own too. So yes, you are on to something in that moral agents may need to make sacrifices to uphold moral significance and make the world a better place. I would say we do have an interest in being moral agents, it's just more indirect and not immediate satisfaction. Upholding principles pays off if everyone can uphold he same principles. So to be Kantian is to lead by example, those suffering good people you speak of are neccessary for the good of others and yes, nobody is perfect, but it those that strive for moral vindication that pepetuate overall well being, and yes, to give the utilitarians their due, happiness. So yes, people with a highly developed concious are probably inevitably going to suffer, but it is a neccessary and stoic acceptance of this suffering that a moral agent may have to accept. Misanthropy isn't a result of this, in fact, I would argue the opposite, a good moral agent is probably a humanist over a misanthropist. It is the misanthropist that will inevitably become the sociopath or the narccissist. So I offer a few scattered ideas to your discussion to consider. Kant had it right except he expected moral agents to be completely altruistic (which in turn would be beneficial to one's own rational nature) which isn't practical. After all, who can focus on helping another if they can't even help themselves? I agree with almost all you say here, except your end result about strong moral agents neccessarily being misanthropic, I'd argue the converse or they'd have no reason to be good moral agents within a human society. I may want to punch certain conservatives in the head for their seeming narcissism, but in the end I recognize they are human and my end goal is to better humanity, so that would be counter-intuitive. A good moral agent (and I try to be one, but I know I'm not perfect, as you say) must have a reason to do good, to uphold a standard and for those of us that don't anticipate future reward from the universe, it lies in wanting humanity as a whole to benefit to love humanity (Jesus is da man in this sense if the "true" Jesus is anything similar to the Paulinian model).
ReplyDelete@Derek,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your coherent comment.You seem to have understood my point well.
Want to say this: As I suggested to Anonymous in the comment previous to yours, a balanced approach is required for optimal payoff, that is, to avoid too much suffering. Being "too good" is going to cause suffering as well as being "too bad" would. The first effort should be being virtuous, of course, but at the same time one should keep looking around at others, whether they are raising their standards. If as a result of one being virtuous, others are raising the bar, one should continue to raise one's bar and society as whole will benefit as long as the process goes on. But when and if others don't change, the good position is to play the double standards.
That said, I believe we are never going to be perfect. This is not to discourage moral behavior; but I believe the double standard thing is there to remain, because it's required by the very design of life. (Because of the conflict b/w the goals of the universe and human goals.)
Evolution is not a "goal". DNA that reproduces itself *might* mutate in the process but that is all. However, social structures themselves can and do "evolve" and in many ways are now more important that individuals...
ReplyDeleteYou forget that there are currently two feedback loops of evolution, namely natural and cultural. Given the rapid pace of technology cultural is going to over come natural. Furthermore culture selects on the basis of the group, not the individual. Hence the moral society will be ever more moral.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be pitting a pious Christian (guided by his institutionally-defined dogma) against a savage (guided by his animalistic impulses) and concluding that each is doomed to suffer because of their respective polarized ethics. It is difficult to argue with this, but these are hardly definitive examples of good or bad humans. Not all definitions of good ethics include pre-marital abstinence, condemnation of alcohol, and other such corrupt ideas one might find advocated by some church. If that is how you see virtue, then the good might appear condemning and suffocating.
ReplyDeleteI have never met a person born "perfect", but have always deeply respected those that make an effort to genuinely better themselves. But an overly religious man who expounds his institution's overly prudent teachings only to betray them in private (for the sake of abating his suffering) is dishonest and not worthy of respect in that regard. What about a preacher who molests children in private, but is never found out? What about Thomas Jefferson's ownership of slaves? On the other hand, what about, say, Keith Richards' drug abuse or Christopher Hitchens' alcoholism? The latter two are not hated so much for these traits because of their openness about them. These aspects do not contradict their ideals, unlike the previous two examples. They are trivial as they do not harm others, despite being unjustly "morally" deplorable (as defined by social dogma). Instead of sweeping these traits under the rug, they laugh about them as they are essentially meaningless to anyone else.
The most respected men throughout history are those who were defined through their moral authenticity, such as Jesus, Socrates, or the Buddha. It made them greater than the rabble, in a sense more than human. I find this to be a greater pursuit than to think one understands what it means to be good only to betray that understanding in action. This would lead to anxiety and a weak and meaningless identity (a far deeper rooted suffering).
Moderation is a fundamental principle of ethics, but contradiction is in direct opposition to moderation. Word and action should be in accord, determining one's broader ethos, which is measured by its aspiration to find and manifest a truer sense of the Good. Trivialities (like one's affinity for sex or drink) should be recognized as inconsequential to morality, but honestly disclosed, not concealed. This is how one should seek to overcome suffering.
TL;DR: use ethics as the measure of a good person, since you are using the word morality to mostly mean adaptation to the ethical imperatives of an institution
I dont think it right to conclude at our level of consciousness.
ReplyDeleteGood people suffer ,agree ,but to become morally down if that fits in well is no solution....it cant be!!!!!!!!
If you follow Swami Vivekananda it is said..."The process of struggle for existence just reverse in case of human being...its how much you can sacrifice ,rather accumulate,will decide your growth."
And who says that? someone who have suffered like hell through his life...relatives died in front of him,terrible pain,poverty,hunger,humiliation....all you cant even imagine!
Think my brother....think...
It seems to me that you are rationalizing. Yes there is a price to pay to live at the higher cognitive level and no your presumption of the chaos at the instinctual level is flawed considering that all species have, as an instinct, 'specie preservation' mechanism. From animals to plants. In less developed animals the mechanism is more biological in nature i.e., Herbert's typical 'survival of the fittest'. If you look at the pattern carefully the base/ instinctual process and the higher cognitive task of specie preservation are connected. We have greater cognitive ability that we use to perform the same instinctual functions.
ReplyDeleteRather than them working separately. The higher the cognitive development of a specie the more complex their specie survival mechanism.
(Think - fishes ...lions..., elephants..., killer whales..., humans)
However since man has evolved to an extent where he can manipulate nature our concept of "fittest" has changed. Mate selection need not be established on - strongest, most intelligent, most beautiful etc cause these can be 'made up for'. The criterion now becomes of similarity in thoughts and emotions.
Secondly your thoughts are culturally biased. You speak in reference to the Indian culture. The are many tribal cultures wherein there is little to no instinct suppression. They are as intelligent as us - here you will need the knowledge of a 'correct' concept of intelligence. So you can't raise doubts about their cognitive development.
That said I come to the foremost point - you seem to be pressed under the burden of suffering. The double standards of the society around you seem to have had an impact on you. Herein your Id wants to present you your own nature but the suffering that would arise when you see yourself without the rose colored glasses would cause a immense amount of psyche pain... and therefore you rationalize.