"Morality is herd instinct in the individual."- Friedrich Nietzsche"Can you tell right from wrong?" This is the kind of question we ask our children, but do we ourselves have a ready answer to it? We use this question to determine whether someone who commits a crime is more or less guilty depending on their intent and state of mind. The question assumes that right and wrong are real and tangible constants, and moreover that the human mind is capable of recognising them for what they are.
Even though the most primitive of tribes, such as aboriginals or criminals, have a rudimentary morality, this only extends to its own members. Those outside the tribe are rarely afforded equal treatment under the code. Even the medieval knights with their strict code of chivalry only reserved this treatment for others from their own caste. These same knights who would not hesitate to sacrifice themselves for the honor of a damsel in distress, thought nothing of butchering the local peasantry. Selective morality is no morality! In this sense all tribe are essentially amoral.
For all our desire to represent ourselves as freethinking and enlightened, the groups to which we belong have a strong influence over our thoughts. We all buy into the belief that our norms are based on some objective measure - that they are quantifiable. We believe that the rules we live by - rules of politeness as well as laws - are unchangeable and incontrovertible. We make judgements based on the extent to which another individual or group conforms to or transcends our sense of the objective moral norm. All members of the group share these views, and the outcome of a discussion between groups can be predicted according to the extent to which their collective norms differ.
This norm is the central myth around which the tribe is formed. A group must differentiate between those on the inside and those on the outside. This distinction will always have some logical premise, at least superficially; but at its root, it is ultimately arbitrary. The set of standards we draw upon in making our judgments are framed by the tribes we belong to. Those whose actions, thoughts and appearance conform to our tribal standards are deemed acceptable, while those who happen to deviate from these norms in some way are considered aberrant. This then forms the basis of our prejudices.
There are such objective constants as "right" and "wrong" that transcend all we do and think - I am not denying that. What I do deny is that it is possible for any tribe to define them without missing some of the nuance and complexity which they require. Our regulations, therefore, are not predicated on right and wrong but on arbitrary definitions thereof. The claim that our laws are righteous, moreover, elevates them to the status of something to be worshiped, making the lawyers the high priests in a religion which elevates arbitrary definition to the status of fundamental truth. In the end it must be up to the individual to define for himself what is right and what is wrong, and it is his prerogative to do this whatever the tribe might argue to the contrary.
Even though the most primitive of tribes, such as aboriginals or criminals, have a rudimentary morality, this only extends to its own members. Those outside the tribe are rarely afforded equal treatment under the code. Even the medieval knights with their strict code of chivalry only reserved this treatment for others from their own caste. These same knights who would not hesitate to sacrifice themselves for the honor of a damsel in distress, thought nothing of butchering the local peasantry. Selective morality is no morality! In this sense all tribe are essentially amoral.
For all our desire to represent ourselves as freethinking and enlightened, the groups to which we belong have a strong influence over our thoughts. We all buy into the belief that our norms are based on some objective measure - that they are quantifiable. We believe that the rules we live by - rules of politeness as well as laws - are unchangeable and incontrovertible. We make judgements based on the extent to which another individual or group conforms to or transcends our sense of the objective moral norm. All members of the group share these views, and the outcome of a discussion between groups can be predicted according to the extent to which their collective norms differ.
This norm is the central myth around which the tribe is formed. A group must differentiate between those on the inside and those on the outside. This distinction will always have some logical premise, at least superficially; but at its root, it is ultimately arbitrary. The set of standards we draw upon in making our judgments are framed by the tribes we belong to. Those whose actions, thoughts and appearance conform to our tribal standards are deemed acceptable, while those who happen to deviate from these norms in some way are considered aberrant. This then forms the basis of our prejudices.
There are such objective constants as "right" and "wrong" that transcend all we do and think - I am not denying that. What I do deny is that it is possible for any tribe to define them without missing some of the nuance and complexity which they require. Our regulations, therefore, are not predicated on right and wrong but on arbitrary definitions thereof. The claim that our laws are righteous, moreover, elevates them to the status of something to be worshiped, making the lawyers the high priests in a religion which elevates arbitrary definition to the status of fundamental truth. In the end it must be up to the individual to define for himself what is right and what is wrong, and it is his prerogative to do this whatever the tribe might argue to the contrary.
About the Author:
John Berling Hardy helps people free themselves from the grand illusion perpetrated by the players. For more of his writings please visit www.playingtheplayers.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment