How to Deal with Spiritual Hierarchy

Accept and Exploit, Deny and Condemn, or Option 3

The world is patterned horizontally and vertically.

Consider the farm.

The insects which crawl around in the grass exert some influence over the world; their little bodies have the power to change the molecular structure of the food they eat. Insects can interact with and influence each other. But chickens have much greater influence. The individual insect lives his life, only to serve as food for a chicken—a small bite of food.

Chickens, as we all know, have hierarchies—they are called pecking orders for a reason. Chickens are complex little creatures with complex biologies. They are sophisticated enough to have individual personalities. We can imagine they live a richer life than the insect, possibly having conscious experiences of some sort. But of course, the chicken lives in a coop, and his eventual destination is a plate.

The structure of the farm animal’s life is controlled by the human. All the complex drama taking place in Cow-dom—the incredible fermentation happening inside the guts of cows, the relationships they form with each other, between mother and child—it’s all structured by the farmer, operating within the constraints given to him by Nature.

There is a real hierarchy—a real vertically-structured order of patterns—which exists on the farm. Two chickens might be at different levels of the hierarchy among each other, but they are on a different level altogether from the farmer. This is not merely a manner of speaking; this an ontological hierarchy that really exists in the world.

For this essay, I am going to call this a “spiritual” hierarchy. By “spiritual,” I mean it’s in the abstract domain of patterns. The spiritual hierarchy is not material, though it clearly intersects or “governs” the material. Each entity in the hierarchy has the ability to influence the world below them, beside them, and above them. The bull can easily crush a bug, can fight another bull for dominance, and can even gore the human in the right situation. The higher the entity, the larger their domain of influence.

Human Hierarchy

The farm hierarchy is not controversial. The problem starts when we ask, “Does this vertical ontology apply to humans, too?” Is the farmer the peak of the spiritual hierarchy?

How do we figure out where creatures fall on the hierarchy?

We observe that the chicken is, in some respects, dominated by the farmer. His life is framed by the farmer; he’s unwittingly working for the farmer and can’t really change his situation. So, we say the chicken is below the farmer.

Is the farmer in a similar situation?

The individual farmer is trying to accomplish something. He’s got ideas, goals, and values which provide a framework for his life. Generally speaking, these are extremely abstract (spiritual) structures which he did not generate himself. The farmer exists in a culture, and he was raised by other humans—both of which heavily influence his ideas and values. The farmer also exists in a society which constrains him; his peers exert influence over him, and he’s forced to pay taxes to a government. In some sense, the government is farming him for resources.

All of the influences on the farmer are extraordinarily complex. The process that determines cultural values is itself hierarchical—the influence of, say, the Pope is not interchangeable with the influence of the average man.

Upon reflection, it becomes self-evident that the spiritual hierarchy extends throughout humanity. There are greater differences of power between humans than there are between farmers and their cattle.

I will not argue for this position but rather take it as an uncomfortable truth. The purpose of this particular essay is to ask: what do we do about it?

Accept and Exploit, Deny and Condemn, or Religion

I observe three primary approaches for dealing with this question. One can:

1. Accept that it’s a fact of reality and exploit it. The strong dominate the weak; the strong therefore exploit the weak. That’s life.

   1. This is the traditional failure mode of extreme rightists—they acknowledge the natural order and can justify the most extreme exercises of power, including slavery and genocide.

2. Deny the existence of hierarchy and morally condemn those who suggest it exists. This can be done for ethical purposes but is generally done for strategic purposes.

   1. This is the traditional failure mode of extreme leftists (communists)—they hate all hierarchy and want to flatten everything, even if that means the destruction of all order, beauty, wealth, and individual distinction.

That leaves option 3:

3. Accept the existence of human hierarchy within a higher moral hierarchy. The reality is that humans are not equals; we are beautiful and ugly, rich and poor, smart and stupid, strong and weak, wise and foolish. The question is: what are the ideal relations between unequal humans? By asking this question, we’ve placed the top of the human hierarchy below the moral hierarchy—the flesh below the spirit.

   1. This is the religious answer. The patterns observed here stretch far beyond an individual’s lifespan. Moral patterns play out over generations and even millennia. Civilizational arcs are judged through the lens of these higher moral hierarchies.

The Christian Example of Hierarchy

The Christian philosophy shows an example of ideal hierarchy: it’s when the superior serves the inferior. Jesus is elevated to the very peak of the hierarchy—literally God incarnate—and he washes the feet of his disciples. He heals the sick and feeds the hungry, but not because he’s their spiritual peer. He doesn’t become a political king and dominate his inferiors. He loves his inferiors and forgives them, even when they persecute him.

Let me try to put it into the bigger Christian framework:

1. Love is the highest state of existence (it’s actually God).

2. Love is the highest virtue.

3. Therefore, all correct action is loving action.

4. An entity of maximum power, maximum competence, and a maximal commitment to truth would be constantly expressing love—and would therefore be God incarnate.

   1. Such entities take care of all their inferiors, even when the inferiors don’t deserve it.

This is a powerful philosophy indeed. If superiors don’t serve other people, or if they don’t serve their inferiors, it seems like a matter of time before the hierarchy devolves into tyranny.

Look at Reality

I used to chafe at the idea of spiritual hierarchies. But that’s because I was young and naive (and particularly sensitive to unjust hierarchies, like many people are). Now I can see the more mature perspective is Option 3: human hierarchies exist for a reason; they aren’t going anywhere; and therefore they must be placed within a higher moral structure. The strong should serve the weak. Christians have it right.