Universal Morality

There was a bit of disagreement about the best title for the topic, which was kind of decided by the True Philosopher; if he finds "ethics" to be too technical, being a defined division of philosophy, than morality it would be.

Still, I do not find the title to be convincing.  In general, when one speaks of universal anything, it is not to describe an occurrence that can be observed in a natural state, but to imply that some conclusion or step is not evident in some population.  It is an attempt to "other" some, while espousing a purely humanistic and perfectly open-minded viewpoint.  We find too many "exceptions" when we compare the moral systems of different cultures all over the world to declare firmly that some universal moral standard exists among humans. The only universal feeling is the biological urge to preserve oneself, which can lead us to act selfishly and even anti-socially, and this is probably the opposite of morality.  We have moral systems in place so that we know how to behave in appropriate ways with others, to keep a sort of calm and stability in society.  Acting only selfishly is not pro-social and does not promote the continuation of a society or civilization, so the only human universal in terms of innate behavior guidance is simply not what we consider morality.  The expression itself is grating to me, in that it is a sort of phrasing that is often used in the context of imposing Western morality on others, and generally with an arrogant and needlessly repressive attitude.  We whine about "immoral" and "uncivilized" behavior, but we do not consider the reasons for its development.  While a great many traditions and behaviors are not necessary in the modern day and age, for the most part there were factors, climatic or social, that made them good ideas at one time.  Even the attempt to lay out some worldwide standard as simple as human rights is not feasible, since one can always find ways to dehumanize one's enemies, and thereby justify treating them in an "immoral" way.  Basically, we will never be able to agree on who is human enough to deserve human rights, and a discussion on "universal" rights and morals is moot if we are simply not able to talk about the same things.

Our Doctor was also somewhat skeptical of the title.  He did emphasize that morality is both individual and social, yet at the same time we do not know what it really is.  Morality is a matter of groups, of society, but each individual has his/her own experience, and our experiences are limited.  We have the notion of good and evil attached to morality, behind its structure, but human judgement is also limited.  Our personal morality can change, and normally does, over the course of a lifetime.  The choices we make as children are not influenced by the experiences we have later on, and similar situations experienced as adults can easily provoke different choices.  He later spoke of words and their powers for communication, saying they should be treated well and used properly.  Morality and good will are often abused as words.  He referred to the idea that humans are naturally good, and only corrupted by modernity or society, dismissing it by saying that our brains are not good or bad, we depend on context to show us the best way in each case.

The Leader focused on definitions quite a bit in his article, and also tried to insist on it in his contributions.  He endeavored to convince us of the human being as a universal group, insisting that every human will choose more or less the same course of action under the same circumstances.  He also insisted on the importance of instilling "moral" reactions to daily life, something that should be a rational and almost instinctual behavior manifested in helping others, avoiding violence, etc.  He pondered the genetic component, saying something in human nature must be linked to human morality.  Our feelings, however, are not the basis for morality.  What is needed is an imperative to act rationally and without obsession with personal and private gain, not a justification for actions already taken.

The True Philosopher brought us a real possibility of interpreting a universal morality in his studied definitions.  In short, it is not the moral code that is universal and necessarily considered to speak of universal morality, but rather the capacity every human has to be moral.  This is the true universal and what should be taken as a baseline.  All humans have a perception of right and wrong, of fair and unfair, and every human behaves in a moral fashion, at least under normal circumstances.  The details may be modified based on culture, but the idea of morality is not foreign to any human society.  We have the possibility of promoting certain ideas as good or moral precisely because all of humanity accepts this condition as natural to itself, so the details may be discussed instead of the whole concept being regarded as incomprehensible.

The Deep Thinker was also not comfortable with the concept of universality in morality, in the sense of particular moral codes.  He felt that the very idea of a universal code was only a recipe for conflict and disaster, since the particular morals of each person are not applicable to others.  The only universal morality is in fact amorality.  He warned us of the hidden agendas any who would insist on their moral fiber must have, and in fact must be present in anybody who promotes anything ostensibly for the greater good.  Nothing is free, he seemed to be saying.

A Recent Reappearance reminded us of the complexity of making good decisions for a community, since any benefit will be a cost to somebody.  National leaders pander to companies because they employ large numbers of citizens and , at least in some cases, are essential parts of local economies.  Some of these companies are involved in shady dealings environment-wise, labor-wise, or tax-wise, but the cost of their shut-down or leaving the area is sometimes more than seems tolerable to a political leader, who then allows the company to continue doing as it wants.  Citizens complain about lawbreaking, but the authorities might make decisions based on what they deem to be "for the greater good", the more moral decision.  In some cases, large numbers of people suffer for some nebulous future benefit, and other times for an immediate, but private benefit.  In any case, morality politics is a complicated road to follow, pocked with potholes of special circumstances.