I have lots of questions about morality. Many more than I can answer. At the top of my list is, “why do so many people try to claim the moral high ground, when often there isn’t very much high ground to claim?”
It seems to me the moral high ground is like the proverbial small-town in the middle of nowhere: “don’t blink or you’ll miss it.” Maybe the moral high ground is not measured in square miles, acres, or square meters – maybe it can only be measured in square centimeters – hardly enough for any of us to stand on.
Diogenes reportedly walked around with a lamp in broad daylight to dramatize the difficulty of finding a rational human being. Paul wrote (after the Psalmist), “No one is good. No, not one person. No one is wise. No one wants to know God. They all have turned away from the straight road. Together they have gone the wrong way. No one does good, not even one person!” and further, “All have done wrong and all are far from being as good as God.” Jesus of Nazareth said, “You must be good in every way, as your Father in heaven is good in every way,” and later added, “Do not do good things so that people will see you do them. If you do, you will get no reward from your Father in heaven.”
Who is good in every way? Who is moral all the time? And, how many people merely try to appear to be good, condemning the things they believe others want them to condemn, abstaining from things they believe others want them to avoid, saying the words they believe others want them to say, or shunning those they believe others want them to shun, just to show how “good” they are? It seems people want to be seen doing “good things,” whatever that means, rather than do whatever it takes to be a good person. “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”
When I consider the hypocrites condemned by Jesus, it seems to me it’s much easier to talk about being moral, or put on a show of being moral, than to be moral. It’s easier to claim the moral high ground for oneself than to admit there is precious little of it to be claimed. It’s also much easier to point out the flaws in others – the specks in their eyes – than to admit the glaring faults in our own lives. If you asked me whether I am a good man or a bad man, I’d honestly have to say I am neither – just a man – good in some ways, bad in others, but trying to be a decent human being.
We are often confronted with the problem of a person being “good” in some ways but “bad” in others. A classic question is, “Would you let the best brain surgeon in the world, the only one who has successfully done this procedure, perform a life-saving operation on you if you found out he was once charged with committing a serious crime?” Every person we meet has skeletons in their closet, aspects of his or her past they are trying to amend, mistakes they wish they hadn’t made. What if that person had once made a public expression that looked or sounded racist or misogynist? What then? We are all faced with the choice of “where to draw the line,” so to speak. How much “bad” can we tolerate on the way to benefitting from the “good” another person can do, or in the interest of allowing that person to become better? How much of a person’s past should we hold against him or her, given that presently they seem to be trying to do the right thing?
Of course, everyone will answer these questions differently, depending on their experience and circumstances. One who has made mistakes and worked to become better might be more tolerant of others than one who believes they have always been “good.” Then again, some past practices can become a pattern that could make present actions much more difficult to accept. The more judgmental among us might say, “You knew it was a snake when you picked it up. Don’t act surprised when it bites you again.” Nevertheless, we must all use our best judgement. We need to consider what flaws we are willing to work with and what behaviors are non-negotiable. On a practical level, forgiveness is not the same as trust. A betrayed wife might forgive her partner for having an affair, but it may take him years of working on being a good husband and father to regain her trust. Yet, just one additional breach might destroy the relationship entirely.
There has been a lot of discussion in recent years about a thought experiment called, “the trolley problem.” That dilemma has been posed many ways, but it boils down to the question of whether one would choose to save several people by allowing or causing one other person to die. As difficult as it may be to justify one choice over the other, it is even more difficult to leave the realm of the thought experiment and consider the implications of such choices in everyday life. We do in fact make choices like those in the trolley problem every day, perhaps without realizing it, and generally without admitting it. To admit our complicity in these kinds of moral choices might be a burden too great for many of us to bear. Certainly, many people don’t even want to think about it, and end up leading whatever life seems best to them in the moment, pursuing fame, wealth, comfort, or power – whatever seems to serve their needs best, regardless of the needs of others.
We have several options for moral choices.
1. Do it because you can. This is the moral position explored in the film, Jurassic Park: “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didn’t stop to think if they should.” Being able to do a thing doesn’t necessarily mean one should do it. The same could be said for doing a thing with the expectation that one might “get away with it” for whatever rationalization.
2. Do it because it’s “the lesser of two evils.” Well, that doesn’t make the choice right, just expedient. Akin to this is saying, “I had no other choice.” There’s always another choice, and while sometimes there are only bad and worse choices, that does not preclude the search for better choices. It also does not release us from the responsibility for or consequences of our actions.
3. Do it to serve your personal interests. This is the “look out for number one,” egoist position. Take care of yourself, because if you don’t who will take care of you? See the famous sermon referenced above for the contrary Christian view. Suffice it to say if the individual is all that matters, life would be, in the words of Thomas Hobbes, “Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Ayn Rand thought the best way to serve others is to serve yourself first. In the words of Ira Gershwin, et al., “It ain’t necessarily so.”
4. Do it to take care of your own. In this option, family, community, and country come before “everyone else.” Better than putting yourself first all the time, at least the tribe means something. But what about “everyone else?” – the refugee, the immigrant, the prisoner, those who are not like me? Is this option better than self-interest? Perhaps not by much. Wars have been fought based on choices made in the interest of “my own.”
5. Do it to promote the greatest good for the greatest number. This is the position of Bentham and Mill – utilitarianism. Certainly, this is one way to decide moral and ethical questions without resorting to a higher power, unless one believes a higher power has provided guidance on what constitutes “good.” The problem is there may be a minority left out in the cold.
6. Do it based on “enlightened self-interest.” We should act favorably towards one another based on the notion that others will in turn act favorably towards us. Life becomes a game of balance – good going out vs. good coming in. Sometimes the balance sheet doesn’t work out in everyone’s favor.
7. Do it because it is the generous, kind, noble, right, or loving thing to do. This is the “Good Samaritan” principle. If he had only thought of “his own,” he would have passed by the injured man, as was the custom between Samaritans and Jews. If there is a higher principle, it must be something like this one: Do good unto others with no expectation of getting anything in return. Often it is difficult to gain fame, wealth, or power this way, but many religions would agree this is a superior option.
Back to “the trolley problem” in everyday life. I’m struck by the realization that while we are not actively choosing to kill one person on Track 1 rather than the family of five on Track 2, every day we make choices that can make life better for some and worse for others. We are also participating in a system in which some have been and may be required to die so we can live, or at least so we can live as well as we do. I’ll start with the second of these propositions.
People lose their lives not only as soldiers, law enforcement officers, and first responders, but in many other occupations we take for granted. For example, at least 100 people died building Hoover Dam. Thousands have died building railroads, highways, tunnels, dams, bridges, tall buildings, and other structures we consider essential to modern living. Thousands have died mining coal, diamonds, and other minerals. Thousands have died working on power lines, in meat-packing plants, and a host of other dangerous jobs. Add slavery to this mix – the tens of thousands who died either being transported to a life they did not choose or working in all forms of back-breaking manual labor – and a fuller picture starts to emerge. Just by choosing to be a part of “modern life” or by tacitly choosing to perpetuate the system as we know it, some will inevitably die so the rest can live the life they want to live. This is our collective solution to “the trolley problem” in the world of work.
We also choose, either actively or by default, that some will live better than others. Every time we insist on the lowest price for goods or services, somebody somewhere in a sweat shop or dying small business may be paying for our choice. When we choose to buy billions of dollars of cheap holiday decorations from China, not only are workers exploited there, but workers here will do without living wages and benefits or do without jobs entirely. Further, we are choosing to spend billions of dollars on “throw-away” goods – money which might be better spent helping the homeless or children who need food, clothing, housing, or healthcare. When we choose to perpetuate a system that values shareholders and corporate officers so disproportionately more than either workers or the communities where they live, we are choosing some to be “worthy” of living extremely well while others can hardly live at all. We choose our priorities by what we buy, how much we are willing to pay for it, as well as how much labor and what natural resources we are willing to allocate to it.
As Buckminster Fuller bluntly pointed out, Thomas Malthus was wrong. Malthus thought because the world has finite resources, particularly food, as the population rose exponentially, demand would inevitably overwhelm supply. In other words, some will win, others will lose. To Malthus, in terms of resources and population, the world seemed to be locked in a zero-sum game and headed towards catastrophe. Fuller countered this argument by proposing that if the overall mechanical and agricultural efficiency of the world could be improved adequately, and the right design solutions for housing, transportation, and energy production could be found, the Earth could support a decent standard of living for everyone practically indefinitely, with no one left behind. The key would be to stop wasting resources by finding more efficient ways of using them. Fuller called it “ephemeralization,” the ability to do more with less. So far, we have demonstrated the ability to put a large room-sized computer in the palm of your hand. If we can accomplish this kind of thing in many more areas, more people could live better without having only a few winners and billions of losers. Of course, this is assuming we don’t continue to choose to let a few persons accumulate all the wealth, or that if they do accumulate great wealth, they choose to use it to benefit more than their narrow circle of associates.
So, what do we choose? Do we choose to recycle aluminum or waste it? Do we choose to buy cars with better fuel efficiency or simply burn more oil? Do we choose to maintain biodiversity or favor species we can use as food? Do we choose to let the oceans replenish themselves or just deplete them? Do we choose to combat global warming or let it happen and allow millions to suffer and starve? Do we choose to provide for the weakest among us – the sick, the elderly, the young – or do we let them die? Do we choose to pursue efficient, affordable housing or continue to let the highest bidder rule the market and continue to invest in inefficient, overpriced housing? Do we choose to develop sustainable alternative energy or just continue to burn hydrocarbons until the supply runs out? Do we choose to design more efficient systems of transportation, or just rely on the haphazard patchwork we have now? Do we choose to seek peace, or continue to spend trillions of dollars on war? Do we choose to run our nations, businesses, and economy as if people matter or keep basing everything on short-term profits? Our moral stance depends on what we choose, and it seems to me we need to make better choices.
MurrayWorks 