Understanding Moral Superiority
Morality is a difficult concept. All sorts of diverse groups and individuals believe they have a legitimate moral basis for their actions and verbal statements. For a start, the evolutionary process is not exactly drenched in morality of any sort, unless we postulate that progress over billions of years makes it moral (the end justifies the means). Perhaps it does, but that eliminates morality on any individual basis.
I would guess that the majority of humans everywhere think they have a good moral basis for their actions and verbal assertions. It might be morally correct to have opposed Hitler by an individual German citizen, or an individual American ghetto neighbor to finger a young gang member for a crime committed, but then maybe they prefer to live than to be abundantly moral. Most everyone growing up, saw plenty of ‘immoral’ things going on in their schools, but for the most part, it seemed best to mind their own business. The reaction to the young behavior of a man nominated for the supreme court is debated widely by our citizens, but whether it is morally significantly important at all varies, and almost purely on the basis of other issues, not morality. Liberals, who usually are more lenient about sexual behaviors, suddenly are incensed; the religious right—who preach fire and brimstone from the pulpit about sexual behaviors—become the defenders; conservatives are simply not going to see their hopes on conservative issues vanish, are not going to let any such incidence block the nomination (too many ‘more important’ issues are at stake). Trump may be the only honest one: (“I can do anything I want, including murder someone, and my base will stand by me”).
But this musing is not about the Supreme Court nomination. The goal here is to make sense of moral superiority. Often moral superiority gives way to some sort of end goal. Even in a football game, if our team wins because a referee missed a blatant penalty, we are elated our team won—period. In the Vietnam War at least 4 United States Presidents didn’t care how many Vietnamese we killed as long as we won the war. We ended up killing around 2 million Vietnamese citizens, leveled every structure of any worth, lost only 58,000 thousand deaths ourselves, still lost the war, and eventually gave in because it became political suicide to draft any more young Americans for the War. And all because we refused to allow an election by the Vietnamese themselves to choose a leader for all of Vietnamese. With third World Countries, America has a history of supporting democracy—unless the wrong person wins or will win an election. All of these are examples of end goals overriding morality.
I suppose, if God (however we define God) is all powerful, then certainly He/She/It would eliminate immorality. It would seem strange that morality might exist so God can have some humans to punish or protect. I doubt this. Certainly, if God protects those who follow the right inherited religion, then we would know by now which religion to practice because those followers are protected from the kind of things for which all people pray to their God. But alas, no matter your inherited religion, just as many of your flock die from certain diseases, get raped, die in car accidents, end up divorced, fail on tests, etc as members of any other group under comparable situations. This genuinely casts problems trying to interpret the significance of morality. Since roughly 97% of species that ever existed are now extinct, the widespread notions we are God’s favorite species, and to the extent for some people, that a Heaven or a Hell exists, seems a tad overly optimistic with no evidence, other than faith, to support the notion.
So, getting any firm handle on the importance of morality is no easy task. I can’t get a handle on my own sense of morality. For a start, it is easier for me to adhere to moral standards than many others because luck has placed me in a position where it is relatively easy for me to be moral. Suppose I had been born in a Newark ghetto and raised by a ‘crackhead’ mother? I would probably have stronger negative feelings about a lot of things in life than any obsession with morality. Especially today, when for the less fortunate, the ‘good life’ is right in their face via cyberspace gadgets all the time round the clock. Science tells us that we inherit a certain amount of willpower and it can be used up over time. We have tests today that can measure our amount of willpower and can track it’s decline over time. Maybe this is what we mean by mellowing out. I have personally witnessed this in college students from ghetto areas. Often they exert amazing willpower to lead exemplary ‘moral’ lives despite their environment and it is not unusual for them to have amazing focus, cooperativeness, trustworthiness, honesty, dependability, etc. But over time, with so many hurdles in their way, they give up and settle for a profession or life situation far below the life potential they had at birth. I’ll put it this way—if I had been faced with half the hurdles they faced in their formative years, I can’t even imagine what my destiny might have been. Even with all the luck in my formative years, I would have managed to destroy my career at several points in life were it not for others who stepped in to prevent my self destruction. To the extent that I did a lot of things ‘my way’ in life is only true to the extent others protected me while I did so.
At least some people who have high moral standards seem to be trying to pay forward to others in need, out of recognition for those who assisted them to have some success in life. We know that diversity is a key element for evolutionary progress. So even if we label The Golden Rule a universally accepted ethical principle, on what basis would we assume this inherent genetic trait is spread around to the same degree. No other genetic traits are. Even if we were to a assume every human is born with the same degree of Golden Rule ethics, our environments, especially in our formative years, are all over the place. We already know, for example, that if a child is beaten physically a lot during their formative years, then that child, as an adult, is far more likely to physically beat their offspring. Where does moral superiority come in here? We know that strong fear is more likely to result in our killing someone. Well, if one lives with little fear in their lives then the likelihood of their killing someone is greatly reduced. Where does moral superiority come in here? Most believe the way in which some youths in ghettoes dress is morally wrong and very intimidating to others. They should, to be morally correct, dress differently. I once asked such a student who was genuinely trying to get a good grade, why they dressed the way they did. Their response: “I have to get from my home to the bus stop or train stop or the grocery store and arrive in one piece or alive. I dress this way so others will think twice about messing with me. Simple as that.”
I often asked at a student hearing whether punishing a student for a rule which in most cases serves a purpose, should be enforced in a case where it doesn’t apply to a particular student and harms them. To harm them, to me, is unethical. Do unto others as we would have them do unto us applies in all cases. Otherwise, it is unethical. For whatever reason, I had a lot of pets when a child. These pets probably taught me empathy for the less fortunate. They needed kindnesses and support and a young child feels rewarded emotionally for being their protector. Then they die, sometimes quickly, sometimes not so quickly and we feel bad, we feel helpless, we feel sad, and we develop kindness for a sense of diversity since these pets were of varied natures. Feeling the same kindness with other humans was far more difficult. We are the dependent in those cases with our known peculiar needs dependent on others to provide, or at least tolerate. A lot of our self worth and esteem is achieved via ‘patriotism’ to family, our inherited religion, our culture, our ethnicity, our social/economic stratus, our small circle of friends, our school, our nation, and so on. All of these attachments make us feel special in varied ways. However, these patriotic feelings, to certain groups of various sort, do not help us act according to the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule does not apply to only certain groups. In short, the evolutionary process, proceeding according to the laws God created to govern the process, has given the human species the ability to help those less fortunate. Praying for God to intervene with His own laws is a waste of time.
Reality develops in different ways to varied degrees over varied periods of times, not that we ever get any firm grip on reality. If we all see reality through our own particular tinted lenses, then it seems natural that our ethical natures will vary. We could, I suppose, live our lives in a self constructed bubble and simply focus on certain personal objectives in life—a la Terrell Owens—but others would then see us as selfish, having no ethical considerations for others around us. In some sort of strange way this would enable us to treat others as we would have them treat us (leave us alone). But this life style is rare, quite rare. In most cases we do want to interact with others substantially.
The nicest thing about the Golden Rule, as the basis for our ethics, is that it cuts through all the complexities and obfuscations thrust at us to become ethical. There are no rituals involved, no inherited religious human written and outdated scripture to pick and choose from, no college degree in religion/ethics required, and it requires minimal judgement of others. The only clashes with our innate ethics often comes from our own personal desires for wealth, titles, power, sex, fame, a stash of more and more things, popularity, and personal safety. Self survival may trump ethics in certain situations and the course of action may not be clear at all. I once had a student who suddenly hid in the back of the class outside of sight from a small window in the classroom door because he knew which ‘gang members’ committed a serious crime on someone, and feared these gang members would kill him or his mom to keep him quiet as a potential witness. I did not press the issue of exactly what he saw, or advise him to go to the cops. I instead arranged for him to live with an uncle in another state and go to college elsewhere. My reasoning was that the victim was dead or suffered whatever, while the student was alive with a future, and he better protect his own future. He could not undo the crime. After all the entire gang could claim he was a gang member and was the one who committed the crime. Legal justice is not always justice at all.
Ethical behavior via the Golden Rule is an endless battle between doing the right thing or allowing our natural instinct for more is better regarding our own learned pleasures at a particular point in our lives. One has to learn the difference between transient periods of happiness which can become addictive or compulsive, and achieving personal contentment which is more sustainable. Addictions and compulsive behaviors cannot bring contentment. It becomes an endless cycle in which the highs need be higher each time, and the lows which follow are always lower than the lows before. Much of life is avoiding this trap. Enough is enough is a valuable trait. Now that I am retired I spend far more money on my charitable FANAFI (Find A Need And Fill It) Fund then I do on myself including food, taxes, entertainment, etc. Does this make me morally superior to those who do not? The goal of all humans is to achieve contentment. Funding my charitable grant provides me contentment and frees me from the alternative——spending a lot of time and energy face to face with the less fortunate. I did that in my productive years which brought me contentment also. Thus, whether I choose to admit it or not, I really am doing it to gain contentment. I am being selfish. If living as best we can by the Golden Rule, and applying it to all of humanity did not bring contentment, on what basis would be want to adhere to this ethical principle? All man created religions tend to have a Heaven and Hell after death as their motive for ethical behavior. But just to be sure there is always forgiveness by God for our sins and often this redemption can be gained on our death bed. This is unbelievably self-serving. We can kill 3 people, repent later, and go to Heaven. In essence we have eliminated any chance for the 3 we killed for them to repent if necessary, got rid of them from our lives, and still we go to Heaven. Nice deal.
All this seems to dictate that moral superiority is basically a smart selfish means to gain maximum contentment in our lives. All humans can practice the Golden Rule via spending time/money/ fairness to others. It is not burdened by the all or none law; that is, the more we practice the Golden Rule the more contentment we gain. We all know some poor people who are more contented than ourselves in life via just being satisfied with little, and never mistreating anyone with whom they come in contact. Many times I have been kind of jealous that such a simple life can bring them so much contentment. Since we are truly unique diverse peculiar individuals it is to be expected that our use of the Golden Rule will vary. There is no one way fits all. No one is morally superior, just better at using ethics to achieve a more contented life. What is more self serving than that, and at the same time helps the less fortunate. Win/win I guess.
The Golden Rule (ethics) is always competing with greed, violence, punishment, intolerance of diversity, pride, titles, power, and so on. Right now, in the present time, the Golden Rule is losing. All these other human traits are on the rise everywhere across the globe. But in the long run, God’s laws which govern the evolutionary process will, after some sort of massive evolutionary correction, allow the Golden Rule, on evolutionary time, to gain control via an improved human species or a new species. That is always how the evolutionary process has worked and progress invariably been the result, not on human time, but evolutionary time. All we can do right now, on human time, is to keep searching for a form of government that can actually maximize contentment for the maximum number of people. In the mean time, Time Stays, We go, albeit my musings seem never to end.
