More on Morality

I have continued to ponder the psychology of morality. Jonathan Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind and his perceptions continues to tickle my muse and make me wonder. To reiterate a bit of the proceeding discussion, Haidt brings up the old nature versus nurture argument about human action with an emphasis, that seems popular currently, putting an emphasis on nature. Or, as he sees it we are hardwired to think in particular moral standards.

I, with my sociological background, have always placed a heavier emphasis on nurture, especially the cultural influences that determine moral behavior. There is the famous old ethics question which goes like this. There is an Indian tribe in South America that believes when a person reaches a certain age it is the responsibility of the eldest son to take that parent up on the mountain and leave them there to die. The question is, what if the eldest son does not fulfill that responsibility but keeps the parent in the village; how would he feel. And the answer is, guilty. He did not conform to the culture and the moral in which he was raised, even if that seems strange to us who have different moral codes. The conclusion being is that culture plays a very strong role in morality despite how we are hardwired. But it also assumes a very singular and widely shared culture.

Now what happens when you live in a multifaceted culture, where there are number conflicting mores, folkways, values and even laws. Morality now gets far more complex. In religion I have talked about in the past two major viewpoints: one being a legalistic viewpoint that sees a God of judgment that sets certain requirements for people, and they will be judged, even damned if they do not follow a certain set of principles. I see these as the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus’ day, and their modern counterparts in the extreme right conservative Christians of today who have a definite set of well defined beliefs and place heavy judgment on those who do not conform to those beliefs. The modern counterpoint of Jesus’ teaching I find in the more liberal and accepting traditions of mainline churches, though there is more inconsistency in the later group.

It is my belief in religious circles the legalistic believers have an easier and simpler system which makes it popular with folk who don’t want to spend a lot of time on applying or thinking about the ethic of love Jesus taught. For instance, adultery; in biblical times adultery was causing a child outside the bonds of marriage ~ meaning there was a lack of responsibility by an individual and society to care for a child of such a relationship. But that principle has been codified by legalists into a narrower understanding of no sex outside of marriage. I heard one account years ago when someone was discussion this with Billy Graham who understood the argument, but went with the simpler legalistic interpretation not because it was right but because it was easier. Situational ethicists live in a more complex and reflective world than do the legalists. It is just simpler.

Now to the world of politics; I find the same principles are at work. There is the legalistic conservatives who have a definite set of rules in which they believe fervently and condemn those who do not affirm them. It is a simpler method. And in both liberal and conservative groups we find folk who follow those same principles of staying with a particular set of beliefs mainly because they have always following them. i.e. “My father would turn over in his grave if I voted ….” But we live in a complex and multicultural country in which moral values are not easy to apply with a single stroke, but are constantly moving and changing and requiring adaptation. One reason educators are typically democratic rather than republican; they are more used to reason and applying logical principles to life.

As I look around I find a lot of folk just plain don’t think much about politics except that they are tired of the public debate and acrimonious arguments that seem to inevitably ensue. There is little love of good debate such as the founding Fathers engaged for the purpose of finding the best truth, ethical values they could.

Increasingly we seem to be a less reflective country and I think that has given rise to a conservative majority. That by no means there are not very bright and intellectually curious and reflective conservatives; there are, but I do not think the rule the day. Ronald Reagan is reflective of the non reflective age in which he could with a straight face promise to lower taxes, decrease the deficit, increase military spending, limit government increase government spending and everybody would be better off with trickledown economics. This was a illogical concept but it has dominated political thinking for 35 years. But according to Haidt, we are hardwired to operate that way.

But if that is true how do explain the years dominated by more liberal thought? How do explain the progressive leadership of Lincoln? How do account for the popularity and effectiveness of the New Deal under Franklin D. Roosevelt? How do you explain a country backing ideas that worked for the common good?

Part of the reason for that I believe is because those were more reflective times and people were more reflective and more engaged in political debate and reasoning. They were more knowledge about their country which was less complex and values were shared more widely.

Those times have past and may never return again. But I hope not. It may well being that the complex difficulties of today’s world may force us to harder thinking. What I think is the big question is whether than will happen before it is too late.