There's an old public administration maxim that goes by the name of Miles's law: “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” It applies as much to matters of moral certainty as it does to budgetary negotiations: perspective matters. I'm far from being an expert on theology but I've been under the impression that, for the significant chunk of the population that accepts the Judeo-Christian cosmology, Satan was as close to being the personification of evil as it gets. And yet Theistic Satanists worship Satan as a deity, a bringer of knowledge, purveyor of freedom, and proponent of equality. If some can question the evilness of a guy whose nickname is “evil” with a “d” tacked on in front, how can we hope to find points of agreement on the existence of absolute evil?
My own sense is that these archetypal dichotomies—black and white, good and evil, right and wrong—are socially useful but not principles of the universe itself. Where does it come from? Unless you believe in an anthropomorphic (cognitively, if not physically) god handing down tablets with laws engraved on them it's difficult to see where from moral laws could derive their authority. If there is no Heaven to reward good deeds and no Hell to punish misdeeds (and I don't believe there are) then we lose the ability to draw those stark, absolute lines. Yet I believe many atheists and agnostics are moral people who do subscribe to the notion that some things are right and some things are wrong.
Many times people with or without faith will justify a sort of morality using the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or some variant. In practice, this often morphs into its cousin, the Silver rule: "don't do to others what you would not have them do to you." Maybe a good rule of thumb but hardly an absolute principle. Under that logic, the actions of people like the Columbine killers are morally excusable because they intended—indeed, wanted—to be killed themselves. We could call this the Anti-Hypocrisy formulation of morality because its only concern seems to be self-consistency. But since I tend to think everyone is inconsistent on some level, it's tough to see any truly moral human being under this rule. Furthermore, it assumes either an inherent "goodness" or a certain equality between human beings; if I can get away with doing things to others that they couldn't possibly do back to me, wherein lies the merit of the Golden or Silver rules? The principle loses any practical value in guiding one's actions and all we're left with are reasons of empathy to avoid doing “evil.” I've heard the suggestion that conscience dictates morality: I know killing is wrong because if I killed someone I would feel bad. Again, that might be a good personal reason not to kill but a moral system with this as its cornerstone is rather fragile. Indeed, it explicitly endorses the view that morality is little more than an individual-specific frame of mind.
The (likely uninformed) view I take on the matter is that morality arose and persists because it has great social value. Society needs rules—both implicit and codified—to grease the wheels and secure a degree of cohesion. A sort of selection principle operates: those who reject the norms accepted by the majority soon find their way out of society, be that through social and geographical marginalization, imprisonment, or execution. In particular, it's very useful to be able to invoke a Boundless Source for a set of rules rather than simply invoking the state. The state has limited power; it can't be everywhere and enforce every law (though, of course, it's interesting to ponder the ramifications of this statement becoming less and less true). But if the laws are absolute and ultimately enforced by the Almighty—well, then it's best not to violate them even if you can get away with it in the short term. Historically, there have been times when significant portions of the population came to see a gap between what was legal and what was moral. The abolitionist movement is probably the most famous example, though I imagine most social movements--and certainly any instances of civil disobedience--contain a large degree of this (even today, arguments for minimum wage increases, anti-poverty efforts, universal health care, etc are sometimes presented in moralistic terms). All this tells us is that many people do not accept the notion that what is “right” derives from man's laws. Indeed, some minor civil laws are, in part, made to be broken--the fines provide essential revenue streams for cities.
There was a paper a few years ago in the journal Faith and Philosophy called “God and Moral Order.” A scenario was presented in it that I found very interesting:
Suppose Ms. Poore has lived many years in grinding poverty. She is not starving, but has only the bare necessities. She has tried very hard to get ahead by hard work, but nothing has come of her efforts. An opportunity to steal a large sum of money arises. If Ms. Poore steals the money and invests it wisely, she can obtain many desirable things her poverty has denied her: cure for a painful (but nonfatal) medical condition, a well-balanced diet, decent housing, adequate heat in the winter, health insurance, new career opportunities through education, etc. Moreover, if she steals the money, her chances of being caught are very low and she knows this. She is also aware that the person who owns the money is very wealthy and will not be greatly harmed by the theft. Let us add that Ms. Poore rationally believes that if she fails to steal the money, she will likely live in poverty for the remainder of her life. In short, Ms. Poore faces the choice of stealing the money or living in grinding poverty the rest of her life.
The author concludes that it would be morally wrong for this woman to steal the money. I cannot agree. Theft can be detrimental to society in any number of ways and, as such, society should not tolerate it. And it is in all of our interests, as members of society, to make sure others do not steal. But in our capacity as individuals against society—-in the absence of an absolute morality handed down from an Absolute—-there is no reason, other than the fear of legal punishment (which is absent in this example), not to do what we can get away with. I suppose we might call this one the Hypocritical formulation. Ms. Poore isn't doing anything objectively wrong in taking the money. It seems especially clear-cut in this case where the motives are presented as "pure"--in that society would approve of the way Ms. Poore intends to spend the money--and no one is significantly hurt by her actions. The "right" to one's wealth or property is conferred by the state and the entire concept is predicated upon the state being more powerful than individuals who might want to take it. However, if the state is ill-equipped to protect your property "rights" and you yourself are unable to do so, well, your "rights" aren't worth a dime. Indeed, history is replete with states depriving other states of property or resources by force (where did the American Southwest come from?).
The natural conclusion, I think, is that no one owns anything except through force (or the threat of force supplied by their parent state), no one has any inherent rights that can be violated, and thus no action can be taken that is objectively "wrong" or "evil." Certain things are frowned upon or even outright condemned by society--in many cases, I would think, the sentiment is drummed up by those who stand to gain the most from that attitude becoming prevalent--and we come to think of them as "bad." But they simply are what they are in an amoral universe. Thus, on a rational level, I take a sort of George Carlin-esque view of rights (he hits it at 8:33 in the video, though the whole clip is worth watching): in actuality, anything goes. You can do anything you please, though society intervenes to put the brakes on that. In an absolute sense, then, there aren't any rules and there can be no true "evil." There are only the rules we impose on each other (and perhaps attempt to skirt when no one is looking) to abate the scariness of the situation. This is where the intellect leads me.
But there's more to a human being than the intellect. One can't help but feel that "evil"--soul-crushing, gut-wrenching awfulness that doesn't lend itself to mere rational analysis--exists; no, not in an absolute sense* but in some nuanced way. At the very least, the sort of cold analysis that leads to a nihilistic and gray world view doesn't lend itself well to my efforts to conceptualize the Good Society. Like I said, everyone is inconsistent on some level.
*It should be clear by now that I don't believe in absolutes.
No comments:
Post a Comment