The Meritocracy of Morality
Power
and authority are generally earned positions by virtue of achievement based on
intellect, leadership, accomplishment, aptitude, or in some cases pure
accident. Much has been addressed considering how best to achieve a delicious
and provoking meritocracy in society, a meritocracy that rewards excellence
rather than money or tyranny. But we continue to operate in a web of leadership
confusion that sadly tends to reward personality, money, and personal
connections. Is it possible to design a society that is structured as a
meritocracy of morality? Such a society might be one of mutual respect for each
other, regard for personal achievement, acknowledge of private property,
unbridled benevolence, and governance with an unswerving eye toward morality.
This
fascinating but perhaps over analyzed topic at times, particularly as it
relates to contemporary society and ethical conduct, addresses natural law,
God's law, man's corruption, and the vast variations of moral interpretation
that exist today. In discussion with individuals and searching through the
murky waters of the internet, it becomes apparent that the topic of absolutes
versus relativism is a hot one today with the ability to polarize churches,
teachers, scholars, and businesses. Although most people seem to subscribe and
operate their lives within an "absolutes" framework, the constant
challenges to their positions compete favorably and, sadly, often victoriously
through the relativism of the modern age. This paper intends to demonstrate how
the pressures of culture, social contracts, and societal concern have eroded
moral absolutes, many of them for the improvement of society but others to its
detriment. Along the journey will be some time spent on the arts and its agency
responsibility to a higher call and purpose. A few words of parental
encouragement for private property and how that relates to moral absolutism are
in order as well as the beckoning for truth in a fallen world.
On
the surface, particularly in a black or white cognitive approach to the world,
human behavior is easily judged by its extremes. While we may rarely find
ourselves in ambiguous situations, unable to make a firm decision, it is
usually easy by virtue of reason and instinct to determine right from wrong. In
this respect, actions are either judged by their absolutes or by their
relativism. Because we cannot and should not live in an entirely relativistic
world, we determine that moral absolutes are the guiding light behind most
people's motivations and for a sense of social and political justice. When we
battle against moral absolutes, we do so with conscious awareness of the moral
position, advocating for a theory of relativity of conduct rather than a
shifting of the absolute. This is called the Categorical Imperative and reminds
us of the truth of moral absolutes and a natural desire to adhere to them
regardless of the circumstances. The idea is waged by German philosopher
Immanuel Kant but is, oddly, considered relativistic in its manifestation[1].
If the categorical imperative is a natural duty then it does become a product
of free will which, in essence, makes it a relative action in spite of its
imperative design. Morals may be universal and they may be duties apart from
consequences or rewards but they are not necessarily absolutes. Morals are
products of the reason as imperative in their actions, not as a means to being
good, but simply as results of duties. All good thinking, but ultimately
relativistic in its outcome.
To
be fair, moral relativism is not always a hopeless arrangement for society. We
are not individual islands existing in a purely anarchical state of personal
moral purity. We are emotionally, economically, and physiologically dependent
on each other and there is a great maturation process when a person admits to
his or her need for trust and acceptance. Few, if any, activities are devoid of
other people’s hands in some way or another. All of economy is built on the
idea of trade and of supply and demand. As I type this essay, I may arrogantly
want to state that I am achieving these words without help of anybody else. But
my absurd thinking quickly diminishes as I realize I am sitting in a chair
built by somebody else, using a computer made partly overseas, in a house that
was built by many people, using skills that took many years to develop and many
dedicated teachers. I look around and see constant evidence of people in my
life who have either knowingly or unknowingly contributed to my existence.
Traffic
laws, policies, general moral conduct, and a host of other expectations are
merely results of relativistic examination of culture and society. My liberty
is only liberty if it does not prevent the freedom of other people. If my
freedom is another man’s straitjacket, then it is not truly freedom. I must act
relative to my environment and if I choose to disregard the laws of the land or
to denounce the expected social contract of my world, then I must be prepared
to face the consequences of my actions. Relativism is real and alive and a
necessary ingredient for progress and social refinement. With gun control as a
current hot topic, any laws designed to restrict assault weapons or at least
register ownership will be an example of moral relativism. When the United
Kingdom made the decision to limit gun usage throughout the country, they acted
through the relativism of the need to avoid violence in the people. Moral
relativism is necessary and in most cases good.
The
damage comes when moral relativism bends itself individually to allow and
rationalize behavior not for the common good. The age old saying, “everyone is
doing it so it must be okay,” is dissatisfactory in light of right and wrong.
Moral relativism is not a justification for corruption, fraud, pain, and
destruction. Too many members of the Third Reich justified their decisions on
the moral relativism of seeking to eradicate anyone not measuring up to their
human design. It is not, and never should be, a license to inflict sorrow on
other people. When this happens, one must seek moral absolutes.
When
examining morality, it is essential to look at how individual lives work
together with the collective to form a congruent social structure. Analogous to
a complex work of polyphony from the 17th century where each line is an
independent and often beautiful melody by itself that then works congruently
with other independent melodies to form harmony and a complete piece of music,
social morality is dependent on the moral actions of individuals working
together with the collective in a grand embracing of social contractarianism.
In this sense, individuals likely practice and are unconsciously aware of moral
absolutes that then are shaped to serve and to reform cultural norms. It makes
for an ideal harmonious relationship as we seek to retain our personal melody
while operating with congruence in a complex cultural framework. Reflecting on
how all this actually works, it seems as though virtue is naturally achieved
but also strengthened through education and cultural awareness. Unfortunately,
this also means that obstreperous and corrupt behavior may be naturally
achieved and, sadly, strengthened through education as well.
It
is difficult, perhaps impossible to write on morality without referencing one's
worldview. A responsible essayist works to reach a wide audience without
denying his or her personal policies and practice. To this end, one cannot
continue long without addressing the role of a deity in the world. If one's
view is that all people are inherently good with a naturally growing sense of
virtue, then one is stating the ability to become a god over time. The other
extreme view is that all people are inherently sinful and cannot achieve deity
in any circumstances. This requires the acknowledgement of a need for God to
counter the natural sin. As a Christian, I acknowledge my sinful nature and am
full of gratitude for the grace of God to counter and absolve my natural
inclinations. Redemption is through grace and my faith drives me forward to be
virtuous in all I do. Failing to do so, I rely on God to guide me toward a
moral life with Christ as a sublime example of service and sacrifice. Naturally
optimistic but aware of the potential for sin, I choose to live a life of
striving for moral excellence through service to God. This journey is a
difficult but rewarding one that does not in any sense abdicate responsibility
but, in fact, increases it. In Christian terms, moral absolutes are determined
or even predetermined by God, yet in a human sense, moral absolutes are
identified through reason and education.
A
few thoughts on art are in order. The arts are built on creativity and
imagination, both qualities of which there is great potential for virtue as
well as vice. We are easily disgusted by art that pictures obvious immorality
and, yet, we are also strangely cleansed by the example. This is true in film,
in theatre, in arts, and in music. Because of the cathartic qualities found in
art, it is nearly impossible to define moral absolutes in the artistic
disciplines. Instead, we find preferences and taste. We are comfortable
assigning moral characteristics to the masterpiece “Messiah” by Handel but less
sure about addressing the morality of a Brahms Symphony. In this respect, at
least to an extent, the arts are strangely exempt from this discussion of moral
relativism versus moral absolutes. Artists cannot achieve a meritocracy of
morality due to practicing a discipline that is without a clearly defined
morality. That stated, all human endeavors can potentially cross the line into
immorality and indecency, art being a supreme example. This is probably why
musicians, filmmakers, dramatists, authors, and visual artists need to have a
broad understanding and establishment of the role of the arts in the collective
worldview.
There
is a certain amount of gain to realize that through reason we can determine
moral absolutes, but if it requires reason, then by virtue of the flaws of
logic and cognition, not to mention the obvious imperfections in mankind's
makeup, moral absolutes then are merely artificial wisps of human imagination.
Good things but mysterious and fleeting. Yet it is not fair to criticize the
reasoning of moral behavior. In point of fact, the process of education should
be about strengthening the ability to reason through decisions, coming to final
conclusions through logical application of what is best for all. As Derek Bok
states, "..., when it comes to helping young people to identify ethical
problems and to ponder them with care, colleges can certainly make a
significant contribution, especially today, when so many students come to
college with an easy relativism that clouds their ability to reason about many
complex questions, ethical and otherwise." [2]
Certainly
education can make a decided difference in how we look at morals and how we
live our lives. The process starts at an early age with how we view property
rights. There are few doctrines more markedly democratic than the doctrine of
private property. When we teach and respect the concept of private property, we
develop a sense of moral absolutes. Not that actually owning property is moral
but knowing the property is owned is the moral acknowledgement. When we accept
another's private property as belonging to that person and when we are aware of
our own ownership of property we achieve a type of moral absolute. To take this
to its logical conclusion, knowledge and acceptance of ownership is virtuous
and serves the idea of cultural congruence. Admittedly, on the surface it would
seem that a communal sharing of all property would ultimately serve the
greatest social good; but, in truth, it works against itself. This may be due
to inherent sin or simply due to the struggle of imposing moral relativism in
social settings.
It
may all begin in Kindergarten and usually at home when we make the moral good
that of sharing all items with each other. The "good" children share
all their toys but the "bad" children are the selfish monsters who
choose not to share. The result of this is to teach children that their
property is not their own and that everything belongs to everyone. Thus we have
moral relativism as it relates to society. Gary North's article on this
subject is an excellent opposing view for parents interested in teaching the
value of property rights. He argues that when children are taught property
rights they will also learn of the value of sharing not through compulsory
force but rather through choice of mutual benefit. [3]
The article is actually an article on the moral absolutism of property rights
over communal relativism.
I
laugh when I recall the few property rights battles that occurred when my
children were small. Oldest son: "Joel won't share his toys." Dad
says, "Whose toys are they?" Oldest son: "Joel's". Dad:
"Then he does not have to share them, but remind Joel that you might
decide not to share your toys when he would like to play with them."
Silence follows and I decide to go find out why. The boys are mutually
cooperating, little to my surprise. They learned to respect each other's
property but they also learned the benefit of benevolence out of choice. They
were not coerced into sharing but chose to share out of recognition of personal
benefit over time. My hope is that acknowledgement and absolute regard for
private property added to the social gain that results from benevolence come
together to form a high degree of ethical behavior that melds easily with
personal achievement and charity. Anyone interested in this concept of
child-rearing will need to talk to my children to see if this actually
occurred!
Taking
this concept into business, the more ownership a person has, the more
responsible he or she has to make the business as successful as possible. When
an individual invests personal funds into a project, he has a desire for it to
improve, to grow, to achieve, and to make a difference. Ironically or perhaps
deliberately, the better a business is, the more difference it ultimately makes
for people, the more it serves the common good. However, if the personal
investment into a project were then forced to be shared with everyone else, all
incentive for achievement and for improvement disappears down the black hole of
apathy and relativism. Coerced relativism under the guise of collective sharing
is a recipe for degeneration and failure. Incentive is dismissed, individual
responsibility is abdicated, and employees find themselves working for a
business that is destined for corporate ownership that is ultimately forced to
disaggregate all profits for the collective whole.
But
private property is a small part of the story of seeking absolutes. A business
benefits from applying integrity and wisdom to all decisions. This includes
planning, scheduling, accounting, pricing, product developing, marketing, and
utilization of distribution channels. The avoidance of moral truth in
developing a business manifests itself in poor decisions, dissatisfied
customers, incompetent employees, and product inferiority. In contrast,
"...moral truth, and the certainty it allows, enables organizations to so
operate that planning can be done with confidence and implementation achieved
on schedule." [4]
When
business is successful, so also does it serve a greater good. This then is one
of the paradoxes of morality--the greater the freedom to achieve, the more
likely will we the see public benefit. "Serving one's employees involves
creating and maintaining an environment in which the company's mission is clear
and that people have a sense that what they do matters, not only to the company
but to the community and to themselves." [5] Employers
have a desire to provide a safe, secure, and healthy environment and to keep
their finest employees satisfied and goal-oriented. A successful business is
not only providing a fine product to consumers, it is also employing
outstanding labor, or as we hear in the news nearly every day, creating jobs. A
moral business is a thriving one and moral actions serve many people in the
process. Given this truth, it is difficult, however, to understand why we
continue to see unethical practice in business and in institutions.
In
contrast to the articulated truths addressing morality, it does seem as though
we continue to experience fraud and corruption at the highest levels of
business and government. This means that in spite of the liberation of
business, the acknowledgement of property rights, the emphasis on integrity, we
still experience a broad form of moral relativism as demonstrated in the
inevitable actions of leaders who practice greed and selfishness in their
social contract. Does this represent a radical and hopeless departure from the
concept of moral absolutes? Not at all, but it does show how relativism can be
both damaging as well as beneficial at the same time. The categorical
imperative is the conscious decision to do the right thing in the right way at
the right time, resulting in a moral good. But the categorical imperative, for
all its qualities, is based on reason and, therefore, flawed in its design. If
reason were infinitely perfect and if the reason were the irresistible force
driving all actions, then all decisions, all conduct, all behavior would be
without flaw. Relying on reason to design moral absolutes is an inevitable
anathema of contradictory behavior due to its fundamental flaw of dependence on
erroneous data--the reason processing of the human mind!
True
moral absolutes are not shaped and molded by events or by social contracts.
They are natural applications of duty not always clearly defined or obvious.
They span cultures and generations and are not dependent on political
machinations or religious interpretations. A moral absolute is not subject to
universal approval nor does it function as a rhetorical practice requiring the
occasional eulogy for its existence. A moral absolute is not absolute one day
for the collective but wrong for the individual, yet neither is it right for
the individual but wrong for the collective. An absolute is a demonstrated
ideal of rigor that is not subject to debate. A moral absolute is the
unconscious and impossible action of right. A moral absolute is a predetermined
truth for all ages and a truth that shapes the thoughts and actions of all
people, a truth that lives singularly in all cultures and operates not
congruently with other morals but, instead, functions vastly without any kind
of quest for acceptance.
The
moral absolute that is unequivocal is that of the sanctity of human life.
Without the sanctity of human life, all is vain, vapid, and vociferously
meaningless in a fallen world destined for misery and abject self-destruction.
The sanctity of human life drives all other morality and gives meaning to all
that is good and right. Placing comprehensive value on human life alters the
process of reason and of all actions and thought. Stealing is an example of
moral relativism but becomes an absolute when seen in light of the sanctity of
human life. The laws of the land may punish Jean Valjean for stealing a loaf of
bread to feed his sister's child, but we forgive such actions in terms of
valuing human life. At the same time, had he stolen substantial goods and
thereby caused the store owner the inability to feed his own family, we would
not have found ourselves as empathetic with Jean Valjean and would likely agree
with the harsh punishment. When a CEO or politician extorts large sums of money
for personal gain and hurts people in the process, we should not be hasty to
diminish the criminal activity. Our sense of respect for human life propels us
forward as a nation and denounces conduct damaging to humans.
Strangely,
we seem unaware of how much pain and destruction results from unethical
behavior at the top levels. We raise our arms in disbelief and outrage when a
crime is perpetrated against a child--and we should, but we shrug when millions
of dollars are stolen by individuals for personal gain. Large businesses have a
significant effect on people and when corruption becomes the norm, the results
are usually devastating to the individuals whose lives depend on the integrity
and honest achievement of the company. Is it the attitude of
relativism--everyone is doing it? Or is it that the crime is in getting caught
not the criminal act itself? After all, most of us break the speed limit
particularly when we see others around us not following the law. Is this also
true at high levels of bureaucracy or of government? Has moral relativism
invaded our though processing and determined our own levels of acceptance?
Perhaps.
Regardless
of where we are in society or where our culture is headed, the sanctity of life
remains the absolute upon which we need to base our decisions. For a Christian,
this is an extension of the Golden Rule and a broad application of God's law to
love each other. For a non-believer, this is still a moral absolute to respect
the sanctity of human life in all circumstances, in all relationships, and in
all transactions. Not all moral relativism is negative and much of it is
individually and collectively beneficial but in the end it is the moral
absolute of respecting the sanctity of life that reigns supreme over other
moral law. This makes the idea of a meritocracy based on morality so
appealing to so many.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Tucker
[1]http://sguthrie.net/kant.htm--accessed
2/1/2013
[3] http://plf.typepad.com/plf/2007/02/teaching-kids-that-property-rights-are-evil.html--article
on a school that banned Legos due to the problem of arguing over property
rights. Accessed, 1/31/2013.
[4] Walton, Clarence, C. The
Moral Manager. Ballinger Publishing Company, 1988, p. 143
[5]
Wong, Kenman L and Scott B. Rae. Business
for the Common Good: A Christian Vision for the Marketplace. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011, p. 208.
No comments:
Post a Comment