There is no moral value inherent in man. There are certain
basic instincts which are close to being universal, but there is nothing that
could qualify as morality which is common to all, or the great majority of,
people or even to all societies and social groups. The moral universal does not
exist.
We* value our own lives and instinctively protect them. We
more or less instinctively protect those close to us emotionally, or those with
whom we can identify an emotional link. But we do not, even instinctively,
value all human life, and intellectually we allow so many exceptions that the
common conception of a fundamental sense of the value of human life is reduced
to nothing.
There is no absolute right and wrong, designed to apply to
our actions, to be found within us and discovered by all of us. There is a
desire for a moral code, as there is an innate ability and desire to
communicate by language, but, as with language, the way it is manifested is
largely arbitrary, and is a result of the interactions of the members of the
society we are born into over many generations.
A moral code is like language in many ways: it doesn’t
matter very much how it is manifested, what matters is that it exists and we
can understand it. It varies quite unpredictably with time and place, and is
largely incomprehensible to those outside the time and place to which it
belongs. Everyone speaks their own version but large numbers of people share
enough of it to understand each other and to feel their membership of the group
that is defined by it.
What is right and what is wrong is an invention of our
minds. We need that invention, for reasons that may have to do with the need to
reconcile our ability to analyse our own minds with our instincts and limitations.
But it is something we make for ourselves. (Like God.) These needs, or instincts,
or ideas, can easily be taken advantage of, manipulated consciously, by
individuals and organisations, and indeed they are, but they are used because
they exist, not invented for the purpose.
Moral relativism is a term which is in itself a moral
judgement. The right and the wrong we believe in are not necessarily- are not
usually- our own inventions, we borrow them from others, we find them and
accept them, gratefully, or unquestioningly, or we have them forced upon us, or
we derive them from our own experience or intellectual consideration, or we do
not even notice we have them until they are brought into question by someone or
something.
It is possible for people who believe themselves to be good
to believe in the fundamental goodness of things which others would find
utterly abhorrent and indefensible. This is an observable truth. Female genital
mutilation, for example (which is one of the things which got me started on
these thoughts) is still carried out because many of the people involved,
doubtless including many of the mothers, some of the practitioners and some of
the girls themselves, believe it is right, and they do it because they believe
it is right. It is not a conspiracy of evil men against women, it is primarily
a conspiracy of the human mind against itself, and it is only one of many,
though it perhaps causes more harm than most. To recognise that it is usual
done because those involved believe it to be right, doesn’t stop me from
declaring it to be wrong.
We must denounce what we believe to be wrong because
otherwise we can have no morality, and we need it. I can call female genital
mutilation not only wrong, but evil, by which term I presumably mean not only
that I would not do it myself, but also that I would very much like everyone
else not to do it as well. But there are people who not think it is wrong.
There are people who believe it to be right, morally necessary and a superior
course of action. There are people who believe they must kill their daughters
if they ‘dishonour’ them in some way. Many of those involved, including, on
most occasions, those who carry it out, the parents of those who suffer it, and
sometimes, I don’t doubt, the victims themselves, believe that it is better to
do it than to not it. These are widely
extended practices, and they exist because enough people believe they are right
to keep the belief alive in the general moral sense of the society.
*We refers to humans in general.
4 comments:
What is right and what is wrong is an invention of our minds.
You did very well down to here then went astray. There are very much moral absolutes, such as not killing or taking your father's wife and the fact that these permeate disparate societies gives the lie to moral relativism.
I'm aware that I overegg it a bit, but I find it quite disconcerting that the more I look for moral absolutes the more I find that there are people who believe in all kinds of things that most of us think of instinctively as wrong. You have to look very hard to find anything that isn't hedeged about with caveats.
The example you give sounds solid, now I think about it. It's a starting point back from the nihilistic conclusions I seem to keep reaching.
We all must confront these things at some time.
Does that mean that I am simply reaching some kind of intellectual or spiritual maturity? And these enquiries are a normal stage for those who make that journey?
It would be comforting to believe it, and that I will eventually reach agreement with my understanding.
Post a Comment