Once again it’s presidential election time in America, and once again I’m irked by the discussion of “morality” in what should be a pragmatic, political discourse. From this vantage point, any effort to invoke morality in the national, political dialogue is an attempt to capture votes by catering to specific demographics which, in my book, simmers down to manipulation. So rather than just wallow alone in my frustration, I thought I would explore the concept a bit further.
One of the problems in discussing morality is that definitions vary by culture, religion and most importantly, interpretation. While most religions declare supreme moral authority, it seems to me there can only be one truth. What this implies is that someone, if not everyone, is wrong. So, if no one’s moral doctrine can be judged reliable, how does one navigate this world of moral relativism? Well, there are commonalities amongst the world’s great religions and one consistent standard of behavior is “The Golden Rule.” It demands tolerance and respect of others as well as personal responsibility by declaring that we should treat others as we wish others to treat us. No one has exclusive knowledge of our creation or purpose. And I would guess, for anyone to claim that knowledge would be contrary to the belief system that they claim to follow.
Systems that rely on enforcing morality are inherently unsustainable because it allows for what I term “Sunday Christians” and promotes skirting rules and regulations. The Danish traffic model may suggest an alternative paradigm. In a few towns around Europe an experiment is going on with traffic signs and signals. In an effort to improve traffic flow and lessen accidents, signs and signals are being removed with great success. Why? The uncertainty at each intersection promotes more individual responsibility and rather than rely on regulated compliance, people are forced to communicate, react and respond to each other’s behaviors.
The key to this system is consent of others where others are involved. In the privacy of your own home, your actions are only limited by the consent of others with whom you share that space. In public, your actions and behaviors are likewise limited by the others that share that public space. In essence, the public square becomes the court of an individual’s private moral consciousness. That is, the common space becomes the venue of judgment and enforces “consensus morality” via peer pressure. It is founded on the belief that we are social creatures and ultimately want to be loved and accepted by others. Ultimately a person should stand or fall based upon their own moral conscience which manifests itself in how they treat others.
So, who can declare that supreme truth? The answer is no one. The wisdom is older than I, but the advice to not “judge a man until you’ve walked two moons in his moccasins” begs us not to hastily or summarily level judgments about others. The only solution is for each individual to take responsibility for their own actions. The world does not need missionaries; it simply needs people living according to the standards they value. Their individual example will become their testament to the world. And, if it’s a good one, it will be mimicked and followed by others.
Related Entries
