Anyone who has ever wondered how we, as a species, became cognitive beings should read the intriguing work of Professor Julian Jaynes. At the risk of oversimplifying, Jaynes saw within humans at about the time of the Trojan War a change in our way of processing thoughts that led to reason and deduction. Earlier humans, according to the Jaynes hypothesis, were driven by a bicameral mind that processed thoughts as auditory commands perceived as being from the "gods". That earlier state was seen as being similar to modern day schizophrenia, though it was of course a cultural norm at that stage of evolution. Indeed, Jaynes saw the "abnormal" schizophrenic today as merely a vestige of that earlier condition. The hypothesis is compelling and widely accepted. It is also thought provoking. There are roughly 24 million people worldwide who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia. There's no telling how many others suffer from the condition without diagnosis or lie somewhere on the genetic scale between their Trojan War ancestors and the most advanced state of evolution.
As the human cognitive process developed, so too did society and ultimately law. Where a literal "voice from the gods" may have guided one's actions three thousand years ago, the evolved human is guided today more by intuition and assessment. One might call that "common sense". Yet, even today, there is some vestige of that "voice of the gods" within most people (we're all a little bit schizophrenic). It is embodied within that personal faculty we think of as conscience. Regardless of one's religious or lack of religious beliefs, conscience is that silent voice that creates our individual sense of morality and ethics. Since all humans exist at some variable point of evolution within the species, that sense of conscience varies as well and its lack of uniformity is a hinderance to social interaction and development. The cognitive or common sense solution for any group of assembled humans is to create and enforce a system of codes or a "social contract" that governs their behavior. Of course that contract (law) will not be the same for every assembled group. As the size of the group increases and nations are formed the differences in national law can become significant and a source of conflict. Out of that comes a need and inevitable yearning for international law—but that clashes with the interests of nationalism.
As society evolves, we find the entire spectrum of genetic evolution debating on issues of control. From those who hear a voice from the gods, to those who hear their ethical conscience, to those who hear only the voice of law. Among the first of this group, law is irrelevant since the revelation is not to be challenged. To the second, the end always justifies the means even if law is perverted. To the latter, ethics have no place since they are a variable construct that lacks universal approbation. The Cultural Property War exemplifies this evolutionary conflict. It is a clash of thought processes as much as a clash of law and ethics and the prospect of the two extremes coming to a lasting agreement seems remote. If we have learned anything from the past three thousand years of experience, we should know that good laws and fair, effective enforcement are the hallmark of a successful society. It's the only way to keep all of the voices in line.
