One of the most perplexing features of the average human is how they seem to believe that they have the most complex of ideas entirely figured out. The humility to reckon that one does not really know is of astonishingly scarce supply. Or at least it has been in my experience. The most tragic of these unbecomings is the nigh-universal belief that, when it comes to what is good and what is bad, one has it all figured out.
We have already discussed the danger of reasoning from faulty foundations, and there could be no more dangerous foundation than the belief that you have a firm grasp of right and wrong, as this can potentially lead to the most disastrous of outcomes.
On the surface, good and evil seem fairly straightforward, boiling down to an almost laudable don’t hit me, and I don’t hit you. However, as the world becomes increasingly more complex, much more nuanced issues begin to arise. Do we have a morally-fueled call to action to become vegan? Is it evil to refuse refuge to those escaping war? How far should we take morality in regards to the small transgressions we make every day, and is there such thing as moral urgency?
Many questions of a similar nature have touched upon the minds of us all at one time or another, and very often the difference between a popular, well-loved person, and one who just seems to get on without any special kind of treatment, lies in the way they figured out morality. By accident or otherwise, the way you have come to believe the wheels of Good and Evil to spin will go on to colour many aspects of your life.
No Answer Without a Question
The first fundamental mistake most amateur philosophers make when reasoning good and evil, is to do so in the absence of the appropriate kind of question regarding good and evil.
It is not enough to simply ask “What is Morality.” One must go deeper, and ask “Why should there be Morality?” Only after answering this latter question and offering an adequate justification of Morality, are we able to approach the former question in any kind of meaningful way.
You see, a tragically understated fact about morality is that it is entirely the result of biology. It doesn’t exist in some faraway philosophy-land only inhabited by the most thorough of thinkers, it exists because of you. Morality is a concept, it exists only in the minds of creatures complex enough to conceive of it. This means that although we may speak of such a thing as “objective morality”, this isn’t actually true in the traditional sense (as morality is not an object, but a concept). However, if we are to use the term “objective” with its more casual usage, often being used in synonym with “true”, we might speculate that there may be such a thing as “objective morality”, as long as the question asked can possibly have a perfect answer.
For more information on Concepts, see my Introduction to Epistemology Series
So, the first of a series of questions we are going to answer in an attempt to unravel morality is: “Why should there be Morality?”. However, it must be noted to the reader that the answer to this question will not ultimately decide how we tackle the question of “What is Morality?”, for it will only offer a stepping stone in that direction. Instead, answering it will provide a framework from which we can discern what our final moral question should be.
Sounds confusing? Hopefully it will all make sense by the end of this series. For now, please bare in mind that the question “Why should there be Morality?” is something we must answer in order to discover what is known as the “Meta-Ethical Question”, and this “Meta-Ethical Question” is the question that must be answered before we can even begin thinking about what Morality really is.
Answering Meta-Ethics
Once we arrive at the often unthoughtof path of the Meta-Ethical Question, the process becomes deceptively simple. If only we were to start here as the basis for all of our moral musings, there may have been many a disaster avoided. Our goal now is to provide an answer to the question “Why should there be Good and Evil?”
The first thing to understand is that Good and Evil are purely the result of a complex social system, of our non-primitive human minds, of biology. Understanding that, we can move forward to deduce that Good and Evil are concepts rising from a desire to adhere to an easy to understand, and yet universally accepted standard from which we may base our behaviour, therein to ensure that humans of a particular group may live in harmony.
Because the “rules” regarding Good and Evil in any human society were, above all, a product of biology, they needn’t ever have been strictly “correct” – they only needed to have served their purpose in a way which was “Good Enough”. Furthermore, being an entirely socially constructed phenomenon, for many years these rules stayed confined just to the cultures that created them. This is to say that one tribes idea of Good and Evil may differ wildly from another, so much that from the point of view of one tribe, the other may be understood as barbaric.
However, as the needs of life become ever more pressing, as the journey towards more and more emotionally stable populations emerge, we require more from our moral codes than simply being “Good Enough”. We need a more infallible structure for what dos and don’ts may exist in accordance to the maintenance of Harmony in the group.
That is to say, the answer to “Why Should There Be Good and Evil” is “In Order To Organize a System of Behavioral Mediation Between Members of a Group”. A system where I don’t hit you and you don’t hit me, which also contains adequate repercussions for those who do hit someone, and, necessarily, that we all feel good about it.
No Such Thing As “Good” or “Evil”
Now that we have answered the meta-ethical question, we may proceed on to asking the real ethical question. The question which most people wrongly deduce as “What is Good and Evil”, and the question which should be worded as “How Do We Organize a System of Behavioral Mediation Between Members of a Group “
This question alone creates a comparatively wondrous stream of thought and answers! No longer are we lost in an endless cesspool of right and wrong, but we have a clear goal, a starting point, a method to our reasoning, as opposed to random speculation and false derivatives.
When considered with respect to the above question, “Good” becomes “That which brings us towards our goal”, and “Bad” becomes “That which brings us away from it.” These simple changes not only influence the way we answer the question, but give us clear guidelines between Good and Bad, even before an adequate answer!
Answering the meta-ethical question first allows us a definitive structure from which to proceed whenever we happen to be wondering whether or not our actions are worthwhile. Now all one has to do is ask oneself, were my actions of benefit to the greater harmony? This actually is a tricky one, as morality will never be easy, even once we have worked it out. Many things that we may believe will benefit harmony actually conspire to destroy it. The truth of these situations is that we may never really know whether or not some actions were good or bad, we just need to accept what they were, face the consequences, and hopefully learn a thing or two in the process. Sometimes the right decision is impossible to deduce, and it is in these situations that all we can do is to aspire to make our decisions right. To flow along with them until a good resolution may be realised.
The Relevancy of Ethics
Now that we have deduced a real framework of determining the morality of actions, I’m going to let you in on a little secret. The majority of the time, our decisions exist outside of morality.
You see, when making moral judgements, a common fallacy is to ascribe an ethical weight to every action one takes. However, if one is not intending to fulfill the requirements of the meta ethical question, namely, “How Do We Organize a System of Behavioral Mediation Between Members of a Group”, then the decision in question is completely unrelated to morality.
If there is no desire or possibility for such a system, then there is no need for ethics, so be wary. Do not become a victim of false application. We lock our doors for the very same reason that we give our loved ones keys; humans were not made equal. Sometimes there are bandits and pirates, looking to do us harm, these savages are not part of our system, and we would be wise not to assume that every person we meet is a participator.
Note that my definition does not include any sort of size of community. Mediation between two people is just as significant as mediation between the members a society. With regards to criminals and savages, those who wish to do you harm, the moral puzzle involves not just the few individuals, but the harmony of the community as a whole, wherein not every person may be a participator. In the case that criminals and savages are discovered, it stands to reason that they are not part of the system which is under govern by morality. In other words, those savages do not exist within the agreed upon moral framework of the community. That is why decisions affecting them are not moral issues. However, this does not mean we should just torture and kill all criminals. What if we believed someone innocent to be a criminal? There must be considered ways of determining consequences in the case of a breach of morality which also respect the potential past or future co-operation of the offender. Furthermore, depending on the social climate, those consequences may also have certain political ramifications. This and more will be discussed in following posts.
Because of the existence of the meta-ethical question, no moral judgements can be made to those outside of the parties who may be making those judgements. That is to say, at least two people need to exist for there to be ethics, but if those two people do not wish to fulfill a harmonious and well-mediated existence, then ethics has no place in their lives. Morality is only relevant insofar as it is a useful tool to its participants.
The Long Term Effects of Faulty Thinking and Why Its Important We Get Morality Right
It may not appear readily apparent, but the entirety of our social understanding, and moreso our political climate is built upon the foundation of ethics that one may have. Those who believe in anarcho communism have a very different viewpoint with regards to the inherent value of a human life that those who believe in libertarian capitalism. Economics, policy, really anything to do with the treatment of other people, stems from an often unconscious understanding of the value of a life. Now that you are aware, you can structure your views more comprehensively.
Moreso than this however, our moral viewpoints influence our personal lives. Often unbeknownst to us, they influence our relationships, our families, our agreements and our boundaries. The fundamental question “How should we treat people”, colours our every action.
In truth, this article does not answer that question, the conundrum of how we should treat one another. What it does do, however, is give us the correct framework from which to answer that question. Does shouting someone down until they comply benefit the harmony of the group? It may get you what you want in the short term, but the most powerful way to get consistent compliance is through nurturing consent.
Rules fit a System, and that sometimes we exist outside that system, so if you do something and wonder if it was bad, ask yourself, was your intention an ethical one, or, was your aim to create more harmony, whether that be between you and a friend, a loved one or a group? Chances are it was not, as we are very rarely acting as moral agents, and our lives do not always call for it. Sometimes there are bandits and pirates, looking to do us harm, these people are not part of our system, and we would be wise not to assume that every person we meet is a participator. Be wary. Now that you understand morality, do not become a victim of false application, we lock our doors for the very same reason that we give our loved ones keys, humans were not made equal.
