I have always considered myself to be an upstanding person, the real life Paladin who is a champion for the meek and a harbinger of good. Imagine my surprise the other day when I discovered the idea of relative morality, the concept that morals are untestable and therefore cannot be proved. If this is the case, then everything that I believe to be good is just a matter of opinion! How depressing.
The revelation of relativity, in a moral sense, has forced me to come to new conclusions about the world around me. I am a socialist, and I have always believed in the inherent good of people and that one day things would be better. Through education and communication the people of the earth could slow down and even reverse the population boom, eliminate poverty, and throw capitalism aside for a more fair and just economic principle. How foolish of me.
This prediction was formulated on the assumption of an absolute moral code, a universal ideal shared by all intelligent beings. Through education, everyone would soon "get it", and it would be obvious that my utopia was the best option for the future of mankind. Once this assumption becomes invalid, it too nullified my prediction. So what can I make from this new evidence?
If morality is non universal, then it is irrelevant. Relative morality is nothing more than an expression of opinion, or emotion (as an emotivist would gladly tell you). That being said, you certainly cannot establish utopias off your own sense of morality; it wouldn't be a utopia by definition, because it wouldn't be pleasant for all involved. I recall that mistakes such as these had been made before, so called "Utopias" that truly failed. Third Reich anyone? I certainly don't want to be messing about in that department.
So Utopia is effectively impossible in a world without universal morals. What is there then to look forward to? Fortunately, there are still some universal concepts that will allow mankind to progress and unify. These are the fundamental needs of a civil society, a group of rules which are a necessity for everyday function. Many of these concepts are laws in the present day, although the books don't convey everything that I believe is necessary.
Take murder for example. People have many differing opinions on this subject, but everyone can agree that murder hurts business as usual. Fear of being killed would keep many in their homes, away from work and (gasp) shopping! Add to this rules against theft, battery, manslaughter, perjury, extortion, and all other kinds of goodies, which without our country wouldn't have lasted as long as it has. Rules, unlike morals, are straightforward, and can be categorized as "forbidding of actions which will harm the day to day functioning of society, or insistence on actions that will enhance it". Even in tribal societies there were similar rules to establish cooperation. Without them, communities crumble.
Unfortunately several moral concepts slip past the checks and balances and become laws. A moral law is any which either forbids actions which do not threaten the function of society, or insists on actions which do not enhance it. These are not universal and thus cannot be forced upon all people. This is not a moral view, but a logical one. A society which forces moral values on a populace is a society which will surely fail.
What about morality then? Ethics must be addressed for a community to survive. Fortunately, it just so happens that we have a system which is set up to deal with this. Actually, when thinking about it I almost cried, because in the case of relative morality we actually have one of the best systems available. It's called democracy, the concept of governance by the people. In democracies, people vote, and what a better way to establish national morals than by a majority vote? I'm not saying the end result will please everyone, but it will please enough to minimize the chance of revolution.
Remember, I am not discussing my moral outlook here, but my view of what the most stable society would be. For questions such as abortion, in order to keep the country from splitting on it, have them vote. Even when the majority wins, the minority knows that it will have a chance to vote again on the subject in the future, or other things that are important to them. This establishes a legitimacy with the government, and ensures its continuing longevity.
Of course, in any good democracy it is imperative that the will of the people is properly represented. Misrepresentation leads to resentment and a loss of legitimacy. Unfortunately our current government falls short of this ideal. Politicians are repeatedly courted and bought, eroding the public collective trust. Our representatives really represent the corporations and special interest, the two of which rarely have the people's best interest in mind. The whole charade is then dressed up as "democracy" to provide legitimacy, and the big wigs go along with the facade to enhance the public trust in its faulty representation.
Such a system will inevitably fall however, no matter how hard the guys on top try to keep the wool over our eyes. You see the results all the time, of people in the streets, rioting and protesting. No amount of police or oppressive laws will deter this (in fact, it only enhances it). On that topic, I believe protest is an essential element of representative democracy. In a country where someone else is buying all your votes, how are you going to have your voice heard? Attempt to eliminate protesting, and you have a revolution on your hands.
To sum up, morality may very well be a relative concept. In light of this, it is impossible to say whether one moral argument is better than another. The best option is to compromise on the situation, achieved by voting and enhanced by negotiation. No one will ever be completely happy with their country, but as long as a populace feels legitimately involved they will be proud. In terms of stability, you can never go wrong with a proud population.
No comments:
Post a Comment