<essay>
A handsome, young man falls in love with a beautiful, young woman and, as luck would have it, she falls in love with him, as well. After a few, brief and awkward encounters, they overcome their self doubt and confess their love for one another. A Hollywood moment.
They get married and buy a small house in the countryside, which sits alone on an empty, far stretching road; one car passing by every other week, at most. They work the farmland and raise a flock of sheep. They are happy, but something feels missing.
Late on a warm summer's day, the man finishes a cool glass of beer and then his wife informs him eagerly that she has fallen pregnant. Suddenly, their lives feel complete.
Nine months later, she gives birth to an angellic baby daughter. She grows up quick, toddling about the house and yapping 'da-da'.
One day, the girl stumbles into the road as that fateful car is passing by, which strikes her to the ground. The car drives off and hours later, the girl dies.
Her parents bathe the cold body, cut the flesh from the corpse and roast the meat for dinner. They enjoy a meal celebrating the life of their daughter.
Something feels irregular with this tale, you are probably feeling disgust. Have the girl's parents done anything wrong? You want to say yes, but if you think on it, can you justify a reason why?
The parents never harmed the girl and did everything to love, cherish and protect her. Yet, in eating her, it feels off. If no one saw or ever found out to be offended by it and the parents found peace in celebrating the life of their daughter in this way and the girl's death was completely out of their hands; is what they did morally wrong? And, why?
I will return to this later.
First: Morality is an abstract noun representing the principles that draw a distinction between what is right and what is wrong; actions which are considered good or evil.
As a collective, humanity is obsessed with morality - the themes of good and evil are sprawled across reams of literature, canvas and film - we have attempted to teach, enforce and fight for righteousness across the ages. Some of our most ancient texts, medieval morality plays and children's fables' only purpose is to inform, persuade and threaten us into agreeing with a particular set of principles which define what is right and what is wrong. However, all too often humanity disagrees on matters of morality. Why is this? Surely, we can all agree on what is good and what is evil? How hard can it be?
Well, if we return to the quick opening story, let's explore two situations where we only have one moral principle and see the conclusions they reach.
Do not harm without consent. The parents did not harm the little girl, nor each other and if there are any adverse biological reactions to their actions, then they did so consenting. Therefore, what they did may not be right, but it wasn't wrong either. You wouldn't neccessarily want to be friends with these people, but when asked if what they did was wrong, we would answer no.
Alternatively: live a life in sanctity. Eating the flesh of another human is bad for you, degrading and unclean. Even though they were consenting in the act, we can interpret their action as a slight against the sanctity of the dead or an offence against a wider community in which these parents are a part of. By degrading themselves, they increase the spreading of diease and illness. Therefore, when asked if what they did is wrong, we would answer yes.
Now, let us imagine that Person A and Person B both hold these principles: do not harm without consent and live a life in sanctity; as part of their moral make up. However, each person values and puts a different weighting on each of these principles, that vastly differ, and therefore, Person A and Person B reach vastly different conclusions in their assessment.
Man's inability to agree on morality when tested or in conflict is why communities have created absolute laws to establish what is agreed upon and how society responds to breaking of moral codes. Laws became the foundation of governments and states; therefore, our complex, interconnected web of legal systems and boarders, which co-exist on our planet all find root in man's morality and coming together as communities. Nothing has a greater impact on a society than the common ideals which it agrees on; other than perhaps, the ideals which it disagrees on. This is politics.
People are fluid and can be manipulated; therefore, society is fluid and can be manipulated - for good or for evil. To understand and better our society, we need to look back and analyse what the influences, corruptions and precious founding principles are for our morality and our morality through history; so that we can readjust our thinking when looking forward and changing our future for good.
<side note>
The most fundamental laws in our society are born from moral codes: murder, theft, abduction, holding someone captive; all break these codes, and thus, our laws. These adhorrent acts are punishable offences because they are against the law; the state; the morals.But, why do we punish criminals?
After all, too often a prison sentence never seems quite enough. Some favour the death penality as a more tough response to crime, while others believe that death is an escape too easy for a violent criminal and they deserve to suffer a far worse fate.
Before we can truly answer this question, 'why do we punish criminals?', we must first consider two other question:
1. Why do people break the law, or, act immorally?
2. Is it ever good to punish a person with evil*?
*Murder, death penalty
Theft, fines
Abduction, arrest
Holding someone captive, inprisonment
We use different words for these same acts when we believe they are justified.
The former question perhaps deserves its own post. I believe that all people think they are good people and I believe, whether a crime is reactionary or planned, people whom break the law, and in turn, a moral code do so because either they follow a different set of principles for their morality than the society's laws they transgress in; or, more relevantly, they decided that an evil act can be justified.
For the second question, I think that most people would answer yes, though some may be against the death penalty, they accept inprisonment and arrest as common place. This presents a troubling paradox, the reason why people answer yes to this question is because they decided an evil act can be justified.
If we don't punish criminals, what do we do with them?
Will a more advanced society than ours in 100 years look back in their history books in disgust at the barbaric ways our societies dealt out justice, just like we look back at ancient or primitive societies in disgust?
</side note>
According to Moral Foundations Theory, there are different principles which form our morality, and in turn, our society. The following is quoted from: http://www.moralfoundations.org/ check out their website for more detail.
"1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long
evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel
(and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness,
gentleness, and nurturance.
"2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]
"3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
"4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
"5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
"6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the
feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who
dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in
tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies
and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to
oppose or take down the oppressor. We report some preliminary work on
this potential foundation in this paper, on the psychology of libertarianism and liberty."
<politics>
There is a natural conflict between principles 4 and 6.Authority viewed as oppression; liberty seen as subversion. This conflict is one of the two main axis on the political spectrum: the Libertarian/Authoritarian, Y axis. At the extremes, Liberalism is Anarchy and Authoritarianism is Facism.
Also, the economic left and right is the weighting of priciples 1 and 2.
Or, looking at the major UK political parties:
Libertarian Vs Authoritarian = Weed Vs No weed
Economic Left Vs Right = No guns Vs Guns
Libertarian Vs Authoritarian = Pro-choice Vs Pro-life
Economic Left Vs Right = Benefits Vs No benefits
Libertarian Vs Authoritarian = Freedom of religion Vs State religion
Economic Left Vs Right = NHS Vs NO NHS
Libertarian Vs Authoritarian = Freedom Vs Control
Economic Left Vs Right = Socialism Vs Capitalism
Do you trust people to be free? Do you trust people to control others?
Should we look after each other? Should we look after ourselves?
When you decide to vote for a person or a party, you are answering these questions for the country and putting your vote towards the collective morality of our society. Whether intentional or not, knowingly or unknowingly, these are the core principles of politics.
Websites such as https://www.politicalcompass.org/ apply this school of thought to political events, such as Brexit;
<political compass>
Remain voters were themselves divided between:
A. Those enthusiastically embracing the EU's prevailing
economics (neoliberal/free trade) but unhappy with the Social Charter
and Chapter — especially on migration. This is a position held by many
Conservatives.
B. Those happy with both the economic and social provisions,
which includes many people on the centre/right of the Labour Party,
almost all Lib Dems and some wet Tories
C. Those enthused by at least most of the EU's social provisions, but rejecting corporate values and neoliberal economics (left-of-centre social liberals eg Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn).
C. Those enthused by at least most of the EU's social provisions, but rejecting corporate values and neoliberal economics (left-of-centre social liberals eg Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn).
Brexit voters were similarly divided between:
D. Those rejecting the EU's prevailing economics but
accepting, at least to some extent, the social dimension (many Laboure
supporters)
E. Those rejecting both (quintessentially UKIP)
F. Those comfortable with many of the EU's economic provisions, if only they could easily exit the Social Chapter (Conservative)
E. Those rejecting both (quintessentially UKIP)
F. Those comfortable with many of the EU's economic provisions, if only they could easily exit the Social Chapter (Conservative)
Unsure where you are on the compass? Find out here: https://www.politicalcompass.org/test
</political compass>
</politics>
Morality is fluid, it has changed over time and it is important to understand this so we can prepare for the future, as it will continue to change for better or for worse, depending on how we act, how we vote and what we stand up for.
For this section, I will look at two areas in short, note detail: sexuality and drugs.
The past-past
Sexuality - homosexuality common among many cultures.
Sexuality - extreme paedophilia towards young children common place and practiced in ancient Greek civlisations, such as Sparta. Child marriage, adult men marrying brides as soon as they are at child-bearing age; early teens.
Drugs - legal.
Drug addicts - left to their own devices.
The past
Sexuality - Christian religions make homosexuality a punishable offense.
Sexuality - extreme paedophilia towards young children deemed immoral, though common place in some religions. Child marriage, adult men marrying brides as soon as they are at child-bearing age; early teens.
Drugs - Illegal.
Drug addicts - criminals.
The present
Sexuality - Gay Rights; marriage.
Sexuality - Paedophilia towards young children immoral and demonised, though still common in some religions. Child marriage continues to this day; however, many governments around the world have outlawed it. See http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/child-marriage-law/ for more details.
Drugs - Some being legalised.
Drug addicts - demonised.
The future
Sexuality - Complete LGBT Rights and freedom of sexuality globally.
Sexuality - Paedophilia no longer demonised and given help or support?
Drugs - fully legalised all drugs? A careful balance?
Drug addicts - treated as a medical condition? Cared for and reintroduced into society?
Returning to morality, what was the point of that? It is important to acknowledge that morality has changed over history and we can expect it to continue changing. If we pretend there is an objective, perfect morality system and that system is the one most people hold today, then we can review the past. When asking is something morally wrong? Answers can be type 1 or type 2 errors.
A type 1 error is accepting a false positive.
A type 2 error is accepting a true negative.
Therefore, we believe today that no matter your sexuality, you should have the right to marry and love whoever you want, then we will regard the demonisation and illegalisation of homosexuality as a type 1 error. In the past they falsely believe it was wrong.
Additionally, ancient civilisations views on paedophilia and rape, for example, were type 2 errors. We believe that these things are wrong now, though they did not back then. They found these acts negatively wrong, i.e. fine, when in truth they were actually wrong.
However, there is no perfect, objective morality system. It is fluid and changing; and still has a way to change before we're close to perfect. By accepting that humanity has made mistakes in the past, we can accept that we are probably still making mistakes.
The way we handle criminals. The way we deal with drug addicts. The way we treat mental health. The way we interact with each other, or don't. The way we use the internet. The way love. The way we speak.
If morality is fluid, who knows how it will change if we do not guide and form it? How can we do that? And if we don't, who will?
A brief return to politics: people protest to ensure their moral voices are heard, but the protest is dead. When was the last time anything changed because of a strike or a protest? Maybe some wages went up for a union. Real change? Protests and strikes have been overdone, they have lost their effect and the people in charge know this - they know that their core voters don't care about protests anymore.
In order to change society, people need to be willing to change their vote, but there is a strong moral principle which stops people from doing that:
3) Loyalty/betrayal: This
foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to
form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and
self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's
"one for all, and all for one."
'Self-sacrifice for the group', people vote against their own best interest in loyalty to parties which stopped caring about them a long time ago. Across America and Europe, the re-emerging right wing authoritarian parties are rising up again, endless air time is devoted to a near-dead UKIP, but nearly none is given to the thriving Green Party. These parties are for the rich and the powerful, yet are voted in by the poorest people who have been filled with hate through media, owned by the rich and the powerful.
It is effective. It is working, again. People are fluid and they can be manipulated. If you don't vote, or are unwilling to change your vote when the party you are voting for is being manipulated and changed by the rich and the powerful, then you are prioritising loyalty over all other moral principles. It is a decision.
Your best friend visits you with a new hair cut, which looks awful. They ask, 'do you like my new hair?' Do you tell the truth and hurt their feelings, or, lie and make them feel good? Comment below.
