What is Good and Evil? What are the rules for right and wrong? Those are questions that immediately come to mind when someone refers to “morality.” But they may be based on incorrect assumptions. They may be based on the assumption that morality is like a light switch—something is either absolutely good (“on”) or absolutely bad (“off”). In reality, morality is more like a thermometer, which measures gradations between theoretical extremes. All our choices are somewhere on a scale between absolute good and absolute evil. A further complication is the fact that different values are often in competition, so that a decision has to be measured by multiple moral thermometers. To be sure, as a practical matter we cannot examine all the aspects of every choice we face, so we rely on rules of thumb or guidelines. But the more serious the decision, the more we should be wary of thinking that multi-hued morality could ever be captured in harsh black and white.
Some do believe they have found a source of moral wisdom that provides a set of simple, clear, absolute rules. But I would base morality on respect for the gift of the Human Spirit in ourselves and in others—and that provides no simple rule book. So how do we live out a morality based on respect for the Human Spirit?
For one thing, it means that we are no more deserving of the gift than anyone else, so we should be modest about claiming superiority over others. But it also means we are no less deserving, so we need not cower before someone else’s claim of superiority.
It also means that we should recognize others—even our enemies—as gifted individuals, not as cardboard stereotypes. We should be curious about their experiences, and the conclusions to which those experiences have led them. In dealing with others, we should keep in mind that we have the gift of the Human Spirit in common, whatever our other differences. Respect for ourselves and others does not mean that we should always surrender to the will of others, but it does mean that we should invest in learning and discussion and generosity before turning to other means.
Morality based on respect for the Human Spirit also recognizes that free will gives us the ultimate responsibility for our choices. At some point—and, possibly, at many points—we will face the chilling question: What have I done with the gift I’ve been given? It won’t be a matter of hiding your choices from some external judge. It won’t be about trying trick some external judge with lame excuses. Oh, you may have tried to kid yourself about your motives, but none of these evasions will work when serious self-examination strikes you. And the key question will not be whether or not you achieved perfection, but how hard you tried.
Finally, this judgment will be about your past, not about your future. You can’t undo your past mistakes, even if they appall you now. But free will gives you the possibility of trying harder tomorrow, and the day after that. Morality lives in what you do next, not in what you did last.
(A footnote: I think there’s an important difference between personal responsibility and social accountability, although the distinction can get blurred in debate. Social accountability is based on rules (expressed by a government, a company, or an organization). Ideally, these rules spring from on an objective evaluation of the most effective way to achieve the socially-desirable behavior. Such rules provide incentives or disincentives that effect behavior, regardless of whether or not a person has free will. Personal responsibility, on the other hand, has meaning only if the person feels he or she has real control over choices. Why should I feel personal guilt about something that was pre-ordained? Because of the difference between social accountability and personal responsibility, I can accept social accountability (possible jail time) while I honor my personal responsibility (taking part in a protest.) Also, because of the difference between responsibility and accountability, great mischief can result when someone tries to justify social rules on the basis of personal faith, because then there is no shared basis for democratic debate.)
No comments:
Post a Comment