More Morality

Morality is a spectrum from absolute conformity through the thinking and questioning but not harming range down to the sociopaths who have no concern for the wellbeing of anyone but themselves.

I suppose, in the name of completeness, I have to state that I believe that individuals will move around on the spectrum to different degrees, and in different ways, and not necessarily be consistent over varying facets of their lives. Okay, done.

There are implications of hypocrisy, dishonesty and fakeness at the high conformity end of the spectrum. Think fanatics. Religious, political - whatever field of extremism, there are associations of exploitation, ignorance and bigotry. The psychology behind that is complex and open to subjective interpretation. In the name of simplicity, I'm not going to do analysis of these factors more than I can help, but instead asterisk out my reflexive skepticism.

High level conformists accept* inherited codes of morals as they stand. Inevitably, some degree of interpretation will occur, but heirachy deference is strong in the conformist mind-set, so teaching and reinforcement and correction help to maintain code integrity**.

Well intentioned thinkers examine the rules to try to discern where improvements can be made. Harm aversion is the most powerful motivation for rule-examination, but inconvenience minimization is a more common reason for this group to experiment with rule modification.

Some rule adjusters are more personal convenience oriented, some are driven by a desire for increased social justice etc. Not all rule adjusters are particularly getting it right or even agreeing on what's fair, so there is much opportunity for debate and friction among this group, as well as between them and the other broad groupings.

The group I call sociopaths care little, if at all, about the effect their transgressions against the rules have on others. As long as they can get away with non-adherence, they will do whatever benefits them. I notice that these sections of the population can exist as individuals in isolation or as sub-groups with their own tribal codes... "Honour among thieves" illustrates.

The idea that people can be viewed as 'not us' and be discriminated against works as an abstract concept, but on a one-to one basis, we find that we are much too similar. If our tribal code decrees that the 'not us' be harmed, then we have to steel ourselves to do it by coming up with reasons that the 'not us' are not the same as we are. Contempt and cruelty are defence against compassion. Look to historical examples of how different sections of humanity have been stereotyped and demonised and impugned and derided for a 'how-to' guide on preparing yourself to massacre 'not us' and avoid or survive the guilt. After all, being able to do so is a survival advantage.

Rather disturbingly, the sociopathic end of the spectrum runs right back into the rigid conformity folk, per sharp delineation between adherents to a particular code and non-adherents. People outside the tribe are often seen as not being subject to all or any of the protections of the rules.

In more chaotic systems, a couple of generations of lawlessness sees children growing up without being aware of societal rules except as some arbitrary and punitive thing imposed by 'not us'. In that there is freedom in our society for people to live lawlessly, we have become the barbarians at our own gates.

Having written this down, I see more clearly that the questioning thinking harm minimisers have quite a job, balancing the rest. It disturbs me to see that the crooks and the politicians really are cheek-by jowl on the moral spectrum. Fanaticism and certitude lend themselves to successful election campaigns far more than does a platform of 'cautious adjustment of existing rules for increased convenience, efficiency and fairness without increased harm'.

Utilitarianism also works as an abstract concept, as far as I can figure. Fair distribution of resources applied to a large group will not be compassionate to outliers. Again, morality feels different on different scales. Looking at the 'big picture' and adhering to the applicable standard is callous. Catering compassionatly to unfortunate individuals soaks up resources. Sociopaths who exploit compassion break the system.


Individual responsibility = Morality?

Social structure = Rules?

So problems occur when people in power try to make their Morality into society's Rules, and when individuals ignore society's Rules when codifying their Morality.

I need to think more about this....

Morality Musings. This rambles...rather a lot.

So... Morals.

What I think morals are, I've tried to state:

Morals are a cultural codification of taboos and rules, made in attempt to mitigate and curtail the destructive potential of our instinctive behaviours.

It's not great, but it's as close as I can get to the gist in one sentence.

Whether there is a 'right and wrong' that exists outside ourselves or whether we are born to innate goodness or wickedness is not something I am prepared to guess at.

Moral codes can be viewed dispassionately in abstract discussions about society. It is far easier to make judgements about behaviours from a distance, and in the cold, hard light of day. Individuals, faced with a difficult moral dilemma will be prone to feel that they are the exception. That the rules do not apply to them, in their specific circumstances. The same can be said about the idea of utilitarianism. What is good for the individual will not necessarily be good for the group. Case-by-case administration of fairness is fraught with difficulty and often contradicts the values of the meta-code.

Bloody Humans

Humans are complex creatures. We need to believe in our own higher meaning, so feel that we are special - better than mere animals who lack our intelligence. It would not do for us to be getting around thinking that we are as unimportant as our food. (Can't go feeling compassion for our food. It's depressing and makes the food less tasty.) I believe that our perception that we are special, and so destinct from and somehow 'above' animals, is much a clever Jedi mind trick that helps us to survive our sapience.

We are clever and good at justifying our behaviour. We can make up good reasons for almost anything we do, whether it is something that is necessary to our survival or advancing toward less imperative ambitions. "Reason is just the endless paperwork of the mind." is a random quote that drifts past... must track that down, I like it.

We kill animals. We kill humans. We destroy vast swathes of the landscape. Species are being lost at an horrific rate, yet one argument for not eliminating the last smallpox specimens is that it would be wrong to wantonly reduce biodiversity in that way. Nothing to do with developing our own potential to inflict hideous and unthinkable plague on 'not us'. No. Nononono.

Evildoers and Fakes

Yes - a perfectly structured society could exist, if everyone were to obey the rules. But as long as there are advantages to breaking the rules, and it is possible to do so without getting caught, rules will be broken.

When a group of humans detects a wrongdoer, our impulse is to punish them, not only punatively for the harm that they have done, but out of frustrated outrage that they have broken a rule that we suffer to observe. Not getting caught is an important part of breaking the rules, and a conscience serves as an excellent way for us to be aware that we are doing something it is better remain undiscovered. Shame is a defence-mechanism as well as a deterrent and self-punishment. Humans who are, or at least show outward signs of being, averse to doing harm are more likely to be able to continue to survive and reap the benifits of living in a community.

Tests and Balance

There are conflicting paradigms I've identified.

When driving along dirt roads, I've learned to watch for 'wise tracks', which are the tyre tracks of cars that have navigated the road before me. Even if I can't see any pot-holes or debris on the road ahead, tracks that swerve to one side indicate that there is a hazard that needs to be negotiated. I can decide to trust my senses and take the more efficient route straight ahead, or I can follow the wise-tracks, trusting that they know something I don't. Borrowing the wisdom of the drivers who have preceeded me down the road allows me to travel with more safety and confidence than otherwise.

This is balanced by the "Grandmother's Roasting Pot" story. Story goes that a woman was laboriously sawing the boney end off the leg of lamb she was preparing. Her teenage daughter asked her why she was doing it. The woman thought about it, but couldn't think of a reason, except that it was the way her mother had done it. She asked her mother about the roast preparation, and she similarly could not recall exactly why the end had to be cut off the roast, but it was a technique she had learned from her mother. She asked her elderly mother who told her that she had had to saw the bone end off the roast in order to fit it into her tiny roasting pot.

Artefacts of acquired wisdom without explanation can provide guidelines for people who follow them. But anachronisms and misperceptions can become embedded, so re-testing is necessary - both to maintain the viability of the code, and so that it can be broken, for good or ill.

Morality....

Working out what we believe we have a right to....

Working out what is fair to others....

Working out how to respond to other people....

My grandfather used to quote:
"Life is mostly froth and bubble
But two things stand like stone
Kindness in another's trouble
Courage in your own"

Compassion. Courage. The antidote to callousness and fear. I feel that these are key.

The hard Part

Where does the line lie between defining what I believe to be right fro my own self, and imposing it on another person who by nature of not being me, is in a different situation? At what point do I, who believe that forcing my belief on someone else is wrong - at what point am I imposing my beliefs on another person? When I judge them? When I advise them? How can I? One person cannot feel themselves to be in a better position to make judgements about another person's life than that person themself unless they consider themself to be far superior in intellect, wisdom or sanity. When do I decide that my personal moral code and moral judgement is superior to that of someone I respect?

At what point, indeed, do people- societies- draw the line between a person's right over themselves and our desire to protect them from what we percieve to be destructive behaviour? Is it unforgivably hubristic to medicate to insensibility someone who cuts themselves, to prevent them from doing so? Where is that line? Engaging in risky behaviour that only endangers themself? How about preventing them from hurting others? How about to prevent them from killing themselves?

Culturally, this problem stands between the US/West and Islamic Countries. Fundamentalist Islam reduces freedoms to an extent that the West finds intollerable - yet by fighting for individual freedoms of teenage rape victims not to be executed for being unchaste, the West is forcing Western ideals onto other cultures, no? I get very tangled up in this. Where is that elusive line?

Morality....

Wisdom is valuable not only because of what it can saves us, but because of what it costs us. Wisdom is too valuable to lose to the rebelliousness or incredulity of less experienced people. Each generation will question the rules, and where the rules are not perfectly understood by the elders - or where the explanation is not likely to be well recieved, walls of obfuscation go up. A buffer of mystery between the rules and the people relieves us of the obligation to think out every detail of our behaviour. In some belief systems, and in some mind-sets, this is not seen as optional, and questioning is actively discouraged.

We can be conservative and follow the wise tracks, or we can take risks and hope to find a more efficient and/or enjoyable path of our own. The more dense the buffer, the less it can be examined and tested, the less likely it is to maintain robust applicability. An overprotected moral code will cause people to encounter 'grandmother's roast' instances, and that engenders skepticism about the rules.

Morality is how cultures try to crystalise the accumulated wisdom of ages into advice for the inexperienced. Rules are designed to prevent people reinventing the wheel. The reason that these rules are so often presented scarily and mysteriously without clear explanation is because there is no explanation that can be made to the naive that they will be able to understand or believe will ever apply to them. We are all immune.

Invincible and harmless in our own minds, until we find that we are not.