Over the last year or so a number of revelations have hit the American news that have made me wonder about our country’s commitment to morality. First there was the fact that a man who was known to be a consummate liar, had fomented an actual attempt to undo a legitimate election, and had been found guilty in a court of law of 34 felonies, was voted in by a plurality of 77 million to 75 million, plus third party candidates. If they didn’t realize it, their vote was a stamp of approval on numerous questionable at best policies and his statement that he intended to get vengeance for perceived wrongs. This time he would have no adults in the room (as he did have in his first term) and that was apparently ok with them. His association with Jeffrey Epstein was also fairly well known, as well as his record on violating fair housing laws and his penchant for cheating his contractors. Thus the question, are the people of our country really committed to a basic moral code or do they prefer a laissez-faire sort of existence, where wealthy or powerful people are free to victimize anybody they choose for whatever reason with no legal consequences. This, of course, is what you would find in feudal Europe and the elected leader seems to prefer such a system.
I am currently attempting to do something that was declared as pretty close to impossible, as described in Michael Shur’s series The Good Place- that is read a rather thick tome on moral philosophy. The book is Justice for Hedgehogs by Ronald Dworkin, and it is primarily one big argument against the fragmentation of the foundations of said philosophy. In his book, Dworkin argues that there is a unified theory of value that incorporates morality and ethics, and which also points to a proper function of politics and political structures, such as the United States. While I might disagree with some details, and maybe not understand others, I think that Dworkin has pretty well hit the nail on its head in his major theses. In essence the basis of morality involves living the good life, without necessarily believing in punishment or reward (although you can if you wish to believe in heaven and hell). By the good life he means a life lived in such a way to avoid causing deliberate harm to others, while pursuing the joy that can be derived, in doing the exact opposite of harm. That is living in such a way that you have few regrets because you had some genuine happiness in the thriving of others and that there exist a social contract between you and others of the willing that allows both to live well. Of course nothing is perfect, but this concept sure beats the currently popular (in certain circles) concept of “what's in it for me?” or Objectivism, the “philosophy” pushed by Ayn Rand, who despised the philosophy of responsibility proposed by Kant (and is pretty well destroyed by Shur in his after TV series book How to Be Perfect: The Correct Answer to Every Moral Question.) This philosophy eventually leads to a society where nobody trusts anybody else. In my view, this is not a good goal, but it conforms to our primitive survival instincts and these can be easily played on by demagogues. At the same time, I really don’t think one can really get rid of Capitalism, but regulated and in reasonable levels i.e. no huge Sirian Cybernetics, as envisioned in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, it can function for human benefit. In other words, I am not a believer in pure Socialism nor pure Capitalism. However, I really doubt that humans are wise enough to balance this successfully as we tend to want things all our way. So far the closest we’ve come are in the Scandinavian countries, but even these are not trouble free. Still they sure beat authoritarian dictatorships and may be as close as we can come to a mixed economic system.
Conservatives as a group believe in Rand’s laissez-faire society, where things take their own course. Ayn Rand would say that government should not help people, but if charity is needed it should be because rich people do it on their own, voluntarily. In her view, those who have made huge amounts of money have done so on their own merit, but, as Dworkin points out, rich people don’t always become rich through deserved means. Often they inherited it, and sometimes they gain it by questionable business practices. Should some otherwise worthy person, who, due to no fault of his or her own, sink into poverty while an undeserving person gains wealth based on no actual merit of their own?
The counter idea that one should live a deliberate ethical and moral life is not at all new- the Greeks knew about it and Eastern Religions, such as Buddhism, dwell on “How should I live?” Unfortunately there has always been a backlash, especially among the well-healed and selfish. Actually, none of us humans are innocent, something that was well pointed out in The Good Place. I can certainly lay no claim to being perfect in that regard. The following observations by me are made based on my own life and experiences, and I fully admit that I can be wrong in one or all of these. I am throwing them out for discussion, not offering them as absolutes, but I’ll express my biased opinion (I wouldn’t be on The Daily Kos if I didn’t have such opinions.) First I’ll look at our current political situation, which I think was well summed up in a recent video (See:
The question to start with is do we humans want a fair and equitable society, with decisions made through representatives we elect, or do we prefer to be subject to the dictates of a strongman and his subordinates, which does not require our effort, but allows the strongman to sequester wealth to himself and his pet projects, as well as punish his enemies, real and imaginary, and remain free of consequences for his actions? Certainly the first would be imperfect, but, in my opinion, the latter would lead to disaster, with none being safe except for a favored few, and even they might certainly have to watch their backs. It seems that in 2024 the plurality choose the second option. They may well be regretting that mistake by now, as the current polls seem to be settling around 36% support (I expect an absolute bottom of 30%).
Why do I bring our political situation initially into a discussion of moral philosophy? For one reason because politics is in everything and, as my wife observed, all you need are two people and you have a political situation. Also, and not at all original with this period of history, it becomes absolutely obvious that despite religious trappings, the “administration” seems to have no moral compass, and this bleeds into the society. One could argue conversely that the lack of a moral compass was inherent in the system all along and was just waiting for the right time to reassert itself in a backlash. Envy, aggrievement, hatred and self-interest can easily attach to a politician who will tell people what they want to hear; namely that someone else is to blame that they haven’t succeeded in life as they thought they should, and it was because of immigrants, Jews, Democrats, Socialists, Feminists, POC, LGBTQ, environmentalists, scientists or some other group, easily named by a demagogue. The Dr. Seuss short piece on Star Bellied Sneetches comes to mind, although it doesn’t come close to covering the enormity of the current crisis.
How do we get into such messes? In part it is because we neglect the necessary information which allows us to realize that all people have potential and a right to their lives, no matter what their origin. It is way too easy to default to survival instincts where we feel comfortable in pursuing our own goals, while ignoring the legitimate ones of others. As one person put it to me (unsolicited!) at the Santa Barbara, California Airport, “You have to look out for number one!” He was justifying his vote for George W. Bush based on lower taxes, even though he said (again unsolicited) he thought Bush might destroy the country! In taking this attitude, we tend to trust people who look like us, who have similar habits and views and distrust people who are not like us. Although this may have been a useful idea in the Pleistocene, where the people in the next valley might be cannibals, there is no real rational reason to do this in our modern world and it works against our very survival (global climate change requires us all, or at least the majority, to be on board). I have found helpful people of all types wherever I have traveled. In addition I have found people of differing “races”, sexes, and sexual orientation who have innovative minds and notable accomplishments. If we get off the cheering for our own type kick, it becomes obvious. In addition, I have found people just like me that could not be trusted. One of my very white friends tried to sabotage my tenure in community college, for no reason I could find directly. I would not even have believed it, if my zoology professor at the time hadn’t clued me in. I suspect it was because he thought I was Jewish!
In essence, there is a reason for value, morality and ethics, especially in our modern world where we are all mixed together, but these reasons often run up against the pervasive attitude that the only way to get ahead is by cutting other people out. While I’m not exactly a Christian, it is obvious that many people who go to church don’t practice what Christ taught. Christian Nationalism is not really Christian at all, but a power grab by people who envy authoritarian Islamic countries and want an authoritarian Christian nation of their own, which I can fearlessly predict will fall into sectarian violence within a fairly short time! Islamic people I have known would say that the so-called followers of Islam that back such states miss the point of the Quran. In addition, morality and ethics are not owned exclusively by religious practitioners, but can be part of the philosophy of a Stoic or Zen philosopher (pretty much my philosophy), or just a person who realizes that we humans are in this together and need cooperation to flourish as we might. I can claim no special knowledge or wisdom in this regard and am at least as flawed as anyone. However, I believe that it is up to the majority to turn the ship of state around from this hell-hole that the current establishment seems to think is ideal, toward an imperfect, but generally well intentioned, governmental system. In other words, do we want a mostly moral and ethical society, or a chaotic immoral one that benefits a few? It’s bad enough that it is destroying our republic, but it is also unbalancing the world.
I find it difficult to believe that our worldwide civilization will survive unless we discard the selfishness and tribalism that divides us. Otherwise, our epitaph may read “Died from terminal hatred.” In the ultimate, within the U.S., we will get what the largest number of voters wanted. Let’s hope that they now prefer a civil society instead of a society composed of warring factions, formulated for certain people to live very well at the expense of the majority. It would be very disheartening to discover that we are content to have a society that is happy to punish its most vulnerable members and elevate its most despicable miscreants. That we no longer even give lip service to decency and fair treatment under the law. A society like this becomes one of bullies and victims, like that in Margaret Atwood’s book A Handmaid’s Tale. Such a culture is rotten to the core.
As with the last essay I wrote on the environment, this will be my last essay on the political situation and on philosophy. I’ve said everything my limited knowledge allows me to say. I hope that it was of some use.
