What do we normally think about
when it comes to making moral decisions? If it is a question of not wishing to
be late for work or an appointment then the normative moral axis seems to pivot
on the disrespect we do not wish to show to those who would otherwise expect us
to be punctual. Yet, perhaps our tardiness bespeaks an altogether different type
of morality awaiting to be born. We may be late for such occasions as we are
unconsciously striving to be free from the unwanted bonds which such
arrangements, persons or institutions are imposing upon us. Therefore the most
moral act in this instance would seem to be to make acquaintence with our
unconscious stirrings, lay them out in the open and act upon their
promptings.
Likewise, it is often the case that continuing working in a dissatisfying environment leads to the erosion of our character; we become depressed and sullen as our real energies are being stifled. We often feel that our earliest imagined notions of what type of person we wish ourselves to be is being daily compromised through association with people whose interests and attitudes towards life act as a continual drain upon the very aspirations we wish to foster.
Let us suppose I am working for a tobacco firm yet I hold it immoral that the company knowingly produces literature which contradicts all the scientific data which confirms the link between lung cancer and passive smoking. I write a circular to the management outlining my concerns and suggest our latest advertising campaign should instead concentrate on informing the public just how grisly a fate it is to have a cancer eat its way through your vital organs. If such a campaign is not commenced forthwith I threaten to quit my quite dispensable and very low-paid job as a cigarette packer. Naturally, I am promptly sacked and as I am handing in the relevant forms to the local unemployment exchange I think how unsympathetic my wife has been during this period of my advanced "moral introspection"; as our four children will all have expectations of entering college someday and clearly social welfare payments aren't going to cover a fraction of these expenses. "Our veins are the smithy of the cosmos, only through steel can it perpetuate itself, or allow itself to be felt", I tell her. She laughs of course and calls you a madman. Nevertheless, I have surely increased my "moral strength" - or have I?
Rarely are moral decisions determined "in vacuo", most of the time we are confronted with a competing necessity and it is our task to weigh up the relative strengths of each opposing claim. Generally speaking, for most of the populace the necessity to provide for one's family and the impetus to give them as best a material life as is feasible trumps any considerations that the occupation one has chosen to do so may be questionable from a moral perspective. The over-riding moral consideration in these instances lies in the fact that one is providing the means whereby the family can thrive and survive - thus "morality" properly speaking, only exists as a value which is selectively endorsed when it is suitable to do so. We now begin to see that there are varying interlapping shades of morality whose spectra combine to give way to what may be called the judgement of a "higher morality", here defined as the solution arrived at through the overriding or negation of now subsidiary moral claims.
In the first instance the budding moralist sadly concludes that his position in the plant is thoroughly expendable; another man could be trained in forty minutes to do the task he performs. Therefore, irrespective of his noble stance, the machinery of industry - against which he rails - will continue to churn out the same rate of cigarettes regardless of who is doing the packing. There will always be someone to fill his shoes and so he will not have affected any real world change outside of any small personal satisfaction he may have had for taking his company to task. Secondly, he concludes he is primarily responsible for the upkeep of his own children. If he should leave this job there are no guarantees that he may be rehired again as employers are generally reluctant to take into their midst a wailing Cassandra apt to blow the whistle on their smallest indiscretions. Thus, his children would be left unprovided for materially and so at this point he rephrases the question and considers that his children will soon be of an age that they will come to understand the moral imperatives which informed his decision to quit.
Perhaps, in fact, he finds that they will respect him for taking a firm stand on his principles and likewise also they may be gifted with such a precocious insight that they willingly foreswear all the creature comforts to which they have been hitherto accustomed; their i-phones, computer games, bikes, trips to McDonalds etc and instead determine to devote themselves like their father to the task of exposing similar examples of corporate dishonesty. They may hit the books and intend to become investigative journalists exposing corruption in public life or trial lawyers working pro bono for the disadvantaged. All's well that ends well, except the wife disagrees profoundly with your analysis and files for divorce citing diminished responsibility. She wins the case as her lawyer demonstrates you have developed a diagnosable mental illness - its principal symptom being the relegation of your family's best interest in favour of a nebulous reasoning which posits the existence of a "higher morality" - and thus gains custody of your children. So, now alone, you have arguably increased your "moral strength" but unfortunately have hit the bottle and wind up on the streets codging sidewalk pennies from Wall Street slicksters.
You shake your head and dismiss this ugly train of events - too hideous to contemplate - so you reconsider your position. Instead, horrified into cowardice, you seek vindication for retaining your job through a series of wilfully deluded abstractions. You research the tobacco industry, for example, and see how beneficial the growth of the crop is for the economies of third world producers. Were you to be successful in your campaign of ensuring "honest" advertising, millions of workers in developing nations could lose their livelihoods due to the downturn in worldwide cigarette demand. You cannot in all fealty have such a mass displacement of workers into the ranks of the unemployed resting on your conscious thus you choose not to press for changes within your company. So, you happily keep your job through a series of rationalisations which you think have informed a stance of a "higher morality" But do the dictats of a "higher morality" in this case compel you to keep your job, your mouth shut and your wife happy or is there another solution to your quandary? Or, to put it another way, does a "higher morality" even exist?
Likewise, it is often the case that continuing working in a dissatisfying environment leads to the erosion of our character; we become depressed and sullen as our real energies are being stifled. We often feel that our earliest imagined notions of what type of person we wish ourselves to be is being daily compromised through association with people whose interests and attitudes towards life act as a continual drain upon the very aspirations we wish to foster.
Let us suppose I am working for a tobacco firm yet I hold it immoral that the company knowingly produces literature which contradicts all the scientific data which confirms the link between lung cancer and passive smoking. I write a circular to the management outlining my concerns and suggest our latest advertising campaign should instead concentrate on informing the public just how grisly a fate it is to have a cancer eat its way through your vital organs. If such a campaign is not commenced forthwith I threaten to quit my quite dispensable and very low-paid job as a cigarette packer. Naturally, I am promptly sacked and as I am handing in the relevant forms to the local unemployment exchange I think how unsympathetic my wife has been during this period of my advanced "moral introspection"; as our four children will all have expectations of entering college someday and clearly social welfare payments aren't going to cover a fraction of these expenses. "Our veins are the smithy of the cosmos, only through steel can it perpetuate itself, or allow itself to be felt", I tell her. She laughs of course and calls you a madman. Nevertheless, I have surely increased my "moral strength" - or have I?
Rarely are moral decisions determined "in vacuo", most of the time we are confronted with a competing necessity and it is our task to weigh up the relative strengths of each opposing claim. Generally speaking, for most of the populace the necessity to provide for one's family and the impetus to give them as best a material life as is feasible trumps any considerations that the occupation one has chosen to do so may be questionable from a moral perspective. The over-riding moral consideration in these instances lies in the fact that one is providing the means whereby the family can thrive and survive - thus "morality" properly speaking, only exists as a value which is selectively endorsed when it is suitable to do so. We now begin to see that there are varying interlapping shades of morality whose spectra combine to give way to what may be called the judgement of a "higher morality", here defined as the solution arrived at through the overriding or negation of now subsidiary moral claims.
In the first instance the budding moralist sadly concludes that his position in the plant is thoroughly expendable; another man could be trained in forty minutes to do the task he performs. Therefore, irrespective of his noble stance, the machinery of industry - against which he rails - will continue to churn out the same rate of cigarettes regardless of who is doing the packing. There will always be someone to fill his shoes and so he will not have affected any real world change outside of any small personal satisfaction he may have had for taking his company to task. Secondly, he concludes he is primarily responsible for the upkeep of his own children. If he should leave this job there are no guarantees that he may be rehired again as employers are generally reluctant to take into their midst a wailing Cassandra apt to blow the whistle on their smallest indiscretions. Thus, his children would be left unprovided for materially and so at this point he rephrases the question and considers that his children will soon be of an age that they will come to understand the moral imperatives which informed his decision to quit.
Perhaps, in fact, he finds that they will respect him for taking a firm stand on his principles and likewise also they may be gifted with such a precocious insight that they willingly foreswear all the creature comforts to which they have been hitherto accustomed; their i-phones, computer games, bikes, trips to McDonalds etc and instead determine to devote themselves like their father to the task of exposing similar examples of corporate dishonesty. They may hit the books and intend to become investigative journalists exposing corruption in public life or trial lawyers working pro bono for the disadvantaged. All's well that ends well, except the wife disagrees profoundly with your analysis and files for divorce citing diminished responsibility. She wins the case as her lawyer demonstrates you have developed a diagnosable mental illness - its principal symptom being the relegation of your family's best interest in favour of a nebulous reasoning which posits the existence of a "higher morality" - and thus gains custody of your children. So, now alone, you have arguably increased your "moral strength" but unfortunately have hit the bottle and wind up on the streets codging sidewalk pennies from Wall Street slicksters.
You shake your head and dismiss this ugly train of events - too hideous to contemplate - so you reconsider your position. Instead, horrified into cowardice, you seek vindication for retaining your job through a series of wilfully deluded abstractions. You research the tobacco industry, for example, and see how beneficial the growth of the crop is for the economies of third world producers. Were you to be successful in your campaign of ensuring "honest" advertising, millions of workers in developing nations could lose their livelihoods due to the downturn in worldwide cigarette demand. You cannot in all fealty have such a mass displacement of workers into the ranks of the unemployed resting on your conscious thus you choose not to press for changes within your company. So, you happily keep your job through a series of rationalisations which you think have informed a stance of a "higher morality" But do the dictats of a "higher morality" in this case compel you to keep your job, your mouth shut and your wife happy or is there another solution to your quandary? Or, to put it another way, does a "higher morality" even exist?
No comments:
Post a Comment