Post-morality is a situation in which a culture has abandoned morality for a system of quicker, easier judgements based on the whims of individuals. A couple high profile incidents recently include the violent and destructive riots in Britain, and the vandal flash-mobs in the United States. Similar events have been post-religion, as seen in Europe where religion has basically dwindled and been replaced by secular lives for individuals, openly rejecting faith, and in various failed states, such as the Soviet Union where government became the determinant of right and wrong, not morality, and the hedonistic Roman Empire, which went up in flames because the idea of decadence became so pervasive that no-one would sacrifice in order to defend the borders from the Visigoths and other marauders. While secular philosophy has tried to fill the void of religion for determining right and wrong, with interesting and meritorious offerings by the likes of Kant and Mills, culture seems to be taking an insidious turn.
Granted, not every age has had a proviso for morality- in the Dark Ages, feudalism meant that the vast majority had no consideration for independent action, but there was still respect for the law of the land, if only because of an iron hand, while the Papacy attempted to keep kings in line, while being severely addled by corruption within the church. While morality was not a constant concern, there was still great concern for doing what was right, even if only because the pope said it and therefore you had to or you would burn forever, or if you didn't follow the laws, the lord would come by and have your head chopped off. Still, even in this mess, there were still concerns about following some sort of code of ethics that encouraged the people to follow laws for more than just the consequences.
In the end, the pursuit of morality may have spelled its own downfall- the idea of relativism. Relativism is a frankly absurd idea that each person has their own code of right and wrong, because things can irrationally change from individual to individual (note the sarcasm). Most pre-modern ethicists would have been appalled by the idea that an individual can dictate morality, and for good reason. If everything is right and wrong based on the ideas of individuals, then there would be constant moral deadlock, because if I believe x is wrong, then I cannot let anyone do it, but if someone believes x is right, they cannot let me stop people from doing x. Besides that, everyone would agree that killing is wrong (hopefully), yet relativism defends people half a world away doing it because "they think it is right", which literally justifies every atrocity and almost every crime (some people know they're wrong and still act that way, which is interesting, but more complex than this post). Relativism dictates, on a fundamental level, that everything is right, but all except the most dedicated adherents would agree that someone robbing them would be wrong, because being robbed is a violation of their code.
However, while relativism is a potential cause of the issue, there is a more significant issue of justification and irresponsibility going on. A man in Britain who was arrested for planning riots and planned to appeal receiving a four year prison term thought it was disproportionate, but the riots have caused damages to many shops and the cost in stolen or destroyed property will greatly harm either business owners or the companies that insure them or both. The individual has been told not to worry about their actions, because they are simply not to be held responsible because they deserve something that they have not gotten. This entitlement attitude results in the idea that you can simply take what you want, regardless of the price. These individuals, according to the following article, have never owned their own property. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2846968.html While the article is heavily focused on the premise of owning property, the idea is that the rioters have no ties to possession or to personal responsibility- in addition, others aren't being considered for their full value as human beings. The idea of post-morality is that you do what you want- essentially a self-centered corruption of utilitarian ethics. People still make connections to others, making it harder to justify robbing a neighbor, but a stranger is much less important. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-17/world/uk.riot.sentences_1_riot-environment-sentences-looting/2?_s=PM:WORLD Sophie Willett, of the Howard League for Penal Reform, told CNN: "I think we must expect that participation in the public disturbances is an aggravating factor when you come before the courts. Stealing a bottle of water in the riot environment is different to going into you local shop and stealing a bottle of water. But, in that spirit we must apply some sort of proportion to this and actually we have to look at people's genuine, ongoing danger to the community and that is what we need to look at when we send people to prison." Notice the last sentence- the ongoing danger. The speaker states that people should be held less responsible because of the atmosphere of the crime. Granted, aggravating and mitigating factors are important in law, but the fact that you could rob a stranger, and get less punishment because you were just going along with a mob implies a degree of irrationality and justification.
My proposed solution to the matter is faith, because true Christianity teaches that you love your neighbor, or anyone, as yourself, but if you refuse faith as a compass, remember to hold others in high regard- they have the same feelings and thoughts as anyone else, and it is important to hold them responsible for their actions and to hold yourself responsible for your actions against them. Don't be willing to let a neighbor continue to do something that you know is wrong just because they think it is right, confront them, so that if you do something that is harmful they will confront you. Once society can openly debate on what offends us or what harms us, and confront the perpetrators, we can hold people responsible for their actions. Don't be willing to let others ruin their lives because it seems alright or they are willing to take actions that you believe are wrong. A degree of confrontation is necessary to insure that there is open discourse. However, do not hold others in debt because of their actions, because the power for justice has been given to the government. Do not enforce your views over others, but solve issues through open discourse and never do anything to others that you would not want others to do to you. Yes, this is a long rant to support the golden rule, but it is important now as ever before to hold up this principle and understand the danger of apathy- complacency has never led to success or happiness, and ignorance and surrender have led to atrocity. Be aware of the importance of actions, so that you will not be willing to idly drift through life, being fine with whatever.
No comments:
Post a Comment