On Morality, Non-Involvment and Relativism

This was written as a response paper for my philosophy class last semester. The ending is incredibly rushed as it was supposed to be a page or so total in length. I decided to cut myself short at four.

On Morality, Non-involvement and Relativism

I propose that there are two types of morality; the relative and the natural. I shall discuss them only briefly, as I wish to move on to issues of the system as opposed to the individual. First, the relative morality of which such a fuss has been made in anthropology and political correctness; presumed to combat the ethnocentric fallacy, these are the cultural norms that govern a given population. They are subject to change not just from culture to culture, but over time as well. As populations evolve and interact, they may absorb or alter some rules of morality. This, as any sort of moral tool then, has us throw out the entire concept of morality and justice when dealing with other groups. This, however, is flawed. If we simply increase the size of the sample population, we find that for no matter what group we start with, when we are “fully zoomed out” we will be left with a relatively world wide morality based solely on the virtue of might and size. Essentially, the western mentality then is correct. Clearly, this is merely a disguised form of the ethnocentric fallacy. Certainly, as cultural pressures this set of “morality” exists, but it is simply inaccurate and deceiving to attempt to portray it as morality. They are merely social pressures.

Natural morality might be approached in a somewhat different way; if you consider as your foundation for morality, the notion of the ethnocentric fallacy (the false perception that the way in which your population lives is fundamentally better, because it’s your population) and we even further restrict the view to apply to an individual, we arrive at a conclusion: maybe, just maybe, I make mistakes. Perhaps others have good ideas.

Essentially, by admitting that individuals are not inherently right, we are left with a view of the self that can make mistakes. We can conclude that we are never certain if we take this or any of several other ideas to their logical conclusion. Consider, then, that someone under duress is not responsible for his or her own actions. Likewise, if they are not free to make correct decisions, are they responsible for their own decisions? I argue that they are not. If, then, they are not responsible for their incorrect moral decisions, then it is surely the oppressor who is responsible for it. A simple extension of the fact that individuals are not always correct is a logical basis for free thought and communication in a society interested in progressing (meaning improving the quality of life and knowledge). If we consider, then, that it is wrong to take away another’s liberties (granted in this case by our desire as a society to improve) it is wrong to do any such deed that might inhibit the ability to choose freely what to think. This, then, would be a natural morality; a non-verbal contract between two or more individuals not to usurp the other party’s right to think.

Non-involvement does not come from the natural set of morality. If we consider that inaction too can be immoral, and if we apply that to our concept of free thinking, we can see that those without access to educational resources (educational resources rather than education. Education tends to refer to indoctrination) are not freely thinking. If you ask someone to pass judgment on an issue whilst withholding from them key facts, they are not making a free decision. Rather, by withholding information, you are robbing them of essential liberties. Likewise, if by inaction you allow the starvation of your neighbor, you are robbing him of his life, and hence, his ability to make free decisions.

The non-involvement, then, comes from that illegitimate and power driven morality. We have divided our concern for each other into government agencies and companies. We have given up our gumption, delegated our dissatisfaction and auctioned off our action. There are specifically designed agencies that are supposed to take care of these things. We have removed from ourselves the fault of inaction, instead placing it upon an institution that lacks the fundamental capacity of free thought and therefore has no inherent benefit in safeguarding the free thought of others. Rather, it becomes a game of perception and deception. An institution can feel no remorse or guilt, and it is only made up of people doing their jobs. We have created a monster that we have no justification in blaming for its in/action. One does not fault a predator for hunting, but likewise, one does not put it in charge of the flock.

Once this system is in place, it is a short hop to non-involvement. We cannot react to a disaster, there is a system in place for that, and we are but individuals, unsure of what to do. If a man is beaten in the street, it is the responsibility of the police, not you. If there is consistent violence in town, we need to have more police, rather than more conversations and connections. We put up signs in our neighborhoods informing our neighbors that we are watching them. We are ready to fault them for a perceived wrong. We are prepared to sell them out for our perceived security. This security, however, is of a murky sort. It is governed by a specific set of rules that one must follow, rules created by an institution, which as we have discussed lacks the capacity for natural morality. Essentially, a sociopath designs our legal system, and it is founded in societal perception (one part relative morality to two parts propaganda). Propaganda and indoctrination are clearly attempts to constrict our freedom of thought and are therefore immoral.

We, as individuals, have the power to improve the world and be active moral agents. The goals then, of a moral person, should be to combat indoctrination, destroy institutions, protect the lives of others and improve the public means of production.

Briefly, the public means of production are those that are non-bureaucratic. They are soil quality, air quality, water quality, scientific data posted freely, artistic works under creative commons or free-license, etc.

In closing, viva les wikis, smash the state, plant a tree and scan books.