Morality

Too important to leave to the Pharisees and pedants. Let's take it back.

It does grind harshly on my nerves when someone trots out the definition of morality that their half-educated sophomore Sociology teacher taught them. The gist of it is that morality is custom - the do's and don'ts of a particular society. What is moral in one society might be immoral in others. One assumes, then, that Professor Dimwitty would say that capturing people and eating their flesh is perfectly moral if you happen to be a member of a cannibal tribe. And if the “custom” of your tribe, which happens to be the Nazi military in 1943 is to shove women and children into gas chambers and ovens, well, that's “moral” for you.

The answer from Professor Dimwitty would probably be that cannibalism or war crimes are an ethical issue, rather than a moral one. He would probably define ethics as rules that apply across all times and cultures. But that makes even less sense. It appears as if the laws that apply across all times and cultures are those that offend tenured Anthropology professors, or, those acts that make their definition of morality problematic.

In order to make this argument viable, you would have to give a coherent definition of how these universal ethical laws are derived. Where do they come from? What makes them universal, at least as far as humans are concerned?

In 1972, a Uruguayan rugby team survived a plane crash in the Andes by resorting to cannibalism after being stranded for 72 days. They faced extreme conditions and starvation, leading them to eat the bodies of deceased teammates to stay alive. Did these ruggers violate an ethical rule, a moral one, or neither? If the answer is “neither,” then there is no universal ethical rule against cannibalism, and the only reason not to eat your dead is custom.

The problem here is obvious. Peer approval and custom are not morality, they are contractual. You are one of us, you do what we do. Using the word “morality” to describe this redefines it in a way that takes away any individual human agency – morality, in their view, comes from “cultures,” (define that slippery term, Professor!) and never from individual judgment.

Taking morality entirely out of the personal sphere, and putting it in the hands of “custom” is unworkable. Slavery was customary everywhere in the world at some point. Preventing black people from voting was customary. Sterilizing “mental defectives” was customary. But unless you believe that some sort of moral sense exists beyond the moral training and culture of the individuals involved – that they should have known that what they were doing was wrong, and how would they know that? Then you have absolved them from whatever they did, as long as it was considered acceptable in their peer group.

This construction, in truth, simply applies the mores of those who subscribe to this theory of ethics retroactively, and calls them “universal.”

If the Sociology and Anthropology professors are being a bit dim, and failing to define their terms in any coherent way, that is a small matter compared to those who thunder about morality in the public sphere, who are not misguided, but militantly stupid. These moral scolds certainly do have what they consider to be universal rules, and, usually, a universal ruler.

They even have a term for this: “Divine Command Theory.” This “theory” posits that moral rules can only come from god – their god, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands. Morally right action, therefore, is the action that God commands or requires.

Questions flood the mind. Which God? How do you know what God wants? The Bible? Well, that's your story. I think your Bible is a load of morally compromised balderdash. It condones slavery, the subjugation of women, and murdering thousands of children directly on multiple occasions. How do you know that your Bible is a reliable source of what God wants? Because it says so? I can say I'm the god of the ocean. Doesn't make it so.

It turns out that what their god “wants” is invariably that which conveniences them, and corresponds perfectly to their preferences and prejudices.

Like most human societies, they have made up a god that is essentially an anthropomorphization of what they think is important and admirable. Athens created Athena, and made her the goddess of wisdom and cunning since, being a cosmopolitan trading city, they valued those traits. The hero of the countryside was Heracles, since there, where the labor was physical and hard, and raiding bandits and wild beasts were common, brain was not considered as important as brawn.

As to our modern crop of Pharisees, since they consider hatred, greed and bullying admirable behavior, and think the occasional mass murder a necessity, that is how their god behaves.

You can tell a lot about people by looking at their gods objectively. A lot of things which they'd rather you didn't know. Which is why looking at gods objectively has always been a capital offense. Vide, Socrates. Or Jesus. Or Giordano Bruno &c.

Of course, before I'll take any of your command morality, I'll need to be convinced that your god exists, and that your morality is something more than, “because I said so.” Your continued insistence on faith tells me that you don't have anything like the extraordinary evidence to support the proposition that there is an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being watching over us and giving a holy squat if we behave in accordance with his moral precepts. You expect me to live my life in accordance with what you say god wants - unquestioning, walking by faith.

In other words, the ultimate, unquestioning moral puppet. Someone who is devoid of any moral agency aside from obedience. Something between a slave and a child.

No, thank you. And any attempt to force the matter will be stopped by any means I find expedient.

Let's reclaim the idea of morality, ¹ and the word itself from the Sophists and the Pharisees. In order to do the job properly, we need two things:

1) A coherent, easily understood definition of what we mean by morality.

I submit that a proper definition of morality would be: Morality is behavior that improves the lives and culture of both the society that adopts it, and the individual who practices it. Antisocial or destructive behavior, cruelty, or refusing to do one's part to uphold the society in which one lives is immoral, not because god doesn't like it, or because an academic doesn't approve, but because they worsen the lot of everyone.

This could be called a “common good” definition of morality, but in my mind, that doesn't go far enough. The individual moral agent needs to consider morality, not just as it affects society, but as it affects them as an individual. If it makes you miserable, and lessens you as a human being, it's probably not a moral thing to do. You are a part of society, after all, and the part you're most responsible for.

This is a useful definition because it is verifiable by observation. We may not agree on what happiness is, but we know what misery looks and feels like. That which immiserates is immoral, that which uplifts is moral. We can see the consequences of behavior, perhaps even measure them objectively. Taking away the health care of vulnerable people is immoral because it exposes them, and the society they live in to fear and peril. Public education (assuming it is properly done) is moral, since it gives many people within a society a chance at a better life, and opens their experience to better things.

To give another example, bigotry is not immoral because society finds it noxious, it is immoral because it aims at making a certain class of people inside a society miserable. It is socially maladaptive - which is why a morally healthy person finds it repulsive.

This definition of morality is not situational, it is adaptive. As the conditions of a society change, what will best provide for it will changes as well.

2) A rational, explainable cause for the existence of morality, as we define it.

Morality exists because it is a necessary feature of human society. We couldn't live without it. It is said that everyone “doing their own thing” and “marching to the beat of a different drum” is great until you have to organize a parade. And modern society is a complex parade indeed.

The answer to the question, “Why should I do the right thing?” is answered, “Because you live in a society, and receive benefits from it. Why shouldn't you perform your duties to the society that protects you, and gives you an opportunity to thrive? At the very least, you should avoid doing harm.”

Of course, if that society is dysfunctional, and does neither of those things, you should strive to improve it. Or if you can't, leave. Cuenca is nice.

We can debate what the right thing is, of course, and deliberate about what sort of society we want. But at the root of those questions should always be, “How can we make our society better, and provide for the security and happiness of all the individuals within, as best we can?”

As I have said before, if your theory of society does not tell me how you are going to ensure that no one is exposed to the elements, or goes hungry, or goes without medical care and the opportunity for a decent education, then your ideology falls at the first hurdle. I'm not interested in the rest of your theoretical construct, it is immoral on its face.

And anyone who would seriously ask, “Why should I do the right thing? What do I care what happens to anyone else?” is a sociopath, and shouldn't be taken seriously, anyway.
____

1Ethics is a whole other puddle of thick, opaque mud, and will be dealt with in a future essay. Probably.