The Nature of Morality
August 14, 2024 at 12:27 pm,
2 comments
This is true but there are some subtleties that need to be grasped in this claim. I think there may have been some confusion.
- The objectivity I am claiming is not a list of dos and don’ts - like legislation. I.e. doing this is OK, doing that is not - I'm not meaning that
- Nor am I saying that the ‘objectivity’ of morality that I am claiming can be found from first principles - I’m not saying that either. It’s more that the objectivity can come to be known through conscience, the unfolding of events and through experiences in life.
- The objectivity of morality exists at a much more subtle and complex level.
- To become truly moral as a human being, is life’s most profound challenge and is ultimately affecting more than anything else our spiritual evolution personally and in the collective.
- The laws of morality is about the dynamics that govern our interactions and relationships with each other and the effects that are delivered back as consequences - that’s Natural Law.
- Every interactive situation that we face in life involves responses, decisions, actions etc.
- Getting this wrong can cause us to put into effect feed-back loops and self-destructive patterns within our own lives and in society at large.
- This can be described as ‘self-sabotaging’. Not spotting at a deeper level, the various subtle methods of self-harm that we do to ourselves.
- What determines a moral or immoral response is governed by a whole complex web of interconnected and intertwining factors. Each situation is fundamentally different because the context is different.
- That is why law must be about context and intent - as we have come to realise.
- Within that complexity, however, are patterns that emerge that demonstrate a certain consistency
- There are, therefore, recognisable characteristics to every given situation that display consistent patterns that indicate the ultimate appropriate moral response - and therefore responses that might be considered inappropriate.
- Because of that complexity we, by no means, get this right all of the time.
- Morality is not simple - just because we express it often in simple terms in phrases such as…
- Do no harm, Cause no loss, act in honour, call out wrong-doing or…
- My rights end where another’s begin
- These are simple expressions that help us determine morality - they are describing some broad-brush principles that we know will more likely cause us to come into alignment with reality
- Sometimes we can spot the morality in a situation easily and sometimes we can’t.
- Each human being’s moral compass operates similarly. Consulting our consciences brings back often quite consistent answers. Not always - but it’s surprising how often we concur on matters of morality - especially when people engage in hard discussion with a view to resolution. That itself is an indication of the consistency and objective nature of the patterns of morality.
- Where we don’t concur, that is one reason why the jury is needed - even if that jury takes a different form from the traditional 12 in English Law. Loosely it is the concept of a tribunal of people - multiple consciences coming together to do the hard work of moral discovery.
- Sometimes we’ve ‘forgotten’ or even been programmed to forget some of those extrapolations of truth in morality and that is where not only do we require others to point out those blind spots to us but also, where we already understand it, point it out to others who have missed it. We all have blind spots in that moral truth, but some have more than others.
- Examples of those situations where we fall into traps of moral blind-spots might be…
- the belief in taxation
- the belief in the ‘right’ of the majority
- the belief in government authority or the state
- the erroneous belief in the need for ‘correcting’ issues of inequality. (Mixing equity and equality)
- the erroneous belief that an entitlement is a right (related to the above)
- One of the nastiest ‘tricks’ that has been perhaps played on us, is the idea that this complexity that I’m describing here is actually moral relativism - it isn’t. Making up your own morality (moral relativism) is, itself, an immorality. But sometimes people confuse complexity with relativism. Just because the clarity in a moral conundrum is difficult to reach, doesn’t mean that morality is relative.
- These moral blind spots can really be described as a collectivist mindset. You are adopting (often without even noticing) collectivist beliefs in the power of a group over an individual.
- Therefore, at the base level of all of this, is the need or requirement - by reality - for human beings to become completely and intimately familiar with what it is to hold Individualist base principles and understand that collectivist thinking is itself immoral according to the very reality in which we live.
WJK - 14th August 2024
2 comments - The Nature of Morality
Paul Jackson - August 15, 2024 at 11:15 pm
You are getting at what I think is the greatest strength of Trial by Jury. I have always been uncomfortable with theoretical positions. Communist, capitalist, socialist, anarchist, and so on. It's not a preconceived system that I want to impose on others. Trial by Jury - morality, as I read your essay - leaves the future open. In perpetuity. It's up to individuals, working in concert, to work out their own society. In that way, I no longer have to present myself as society's guru with all the answers. I humbly acknowledge with wisdom of others, the ability of others - including myself - to come to moral decisions. Also, I don't have to defer to bullies who believe they know everything. I don't trust them, I don't trust me.
William Keyte - August 23, 2024 at 10:29 am
Hi Paul - good to hear from you. Steiner warned of the Ahrimanic impulse - which is to attempt to map out everything by over-systematising. This is the desire to model everything ahead of time in order to remain in control. Legislate for every outcome - account for every eventuality. This is the extreme masculine 'freeze' effect of over-control. Digitisation? No feminine or unknown organic possibility / magic. The Christ is the integration of both.
Keep in mind, however, that the people also need to make sure their underlying foundational principles fit an individualist ideology or they will generate self-destructive feedback loops and patterns and fall into collectivist traps. The belief in the power of another human over you. This is where we are now. Trial by Jury is the magic not only because of how it brings about justice - but also because of its healing capacities and shadow/reflection effects on the psyche. It causes people to rise in consciousness by becoming more civic-minded and responsible :-)
Thanks for your comment Paul - hope all good with you.
Will
Keep in mind, however, that the people also need to make sure their underlying foundational principles fit an individualist ideology or they will generate self-destructive feedback loops and patterns and fall into collectivist traps. The belief in the power of another human over you. This is where we are now. Trial by Jury is the magic not only because of how it brings about justice - but also because of its healing capacities and shadow/reflection effects on the psyche. It causes people to rise in consciousness by becoming more civic-minded and responsible :-)
Thanks for your comment Paul - hope all good with you.
Will