|
|
|
On the large scale, we have laws that require us to behave in a particular way and sanctions for when we don't. If we always had to be looking over our shoulders, as happens where the rule of law has broken down, then our lives be much more difficult. We would have to spend a lot of time looking after our own security. We would not be able to make assumptions about the benignity of other peoples' actions - for example that we can mostly walk down the street without being attacked; we can buy things which are what they purport to be; we can enter into long-term contracts for the provision of health-care with reasonable certainty that they will be honoured when we make a claim. And because it is so important to us that we should be able to live our lives as part of a matrix of people who can trust each other at this level, we demand that our politicians work towards a crime-free society. It is always a major matter at election-time. It is probably because, instinctively, we do not feel that we can trust strangers as much as people who, in some sense we know and whom we recognise as part of our group, that the majority of people in this country resist the idea of immigration as well. Even though the law and particular moral codes may overlap, it seems to me that acting morally is a slightly different concept from acting in accordance with the law. The law demands that we do or not do certain things. Morality includes behaviour which would not be the subject of any normal legal system. To a large extent it is an example of voluntary behaviour designed to allow you to be accepted by the group of people you wish to mix with and to have the benefits which come from that. So then, at the very least, if I am regarded as someone who doesn't keep my promises or as too likely to covet my neighbour's wife, his ox or his ass, then I shall find it difficult to make friends. There are though many other rules I need to abide by. For example, in order to be accepted in a philosophy group, you need to be able to express yourself in a way which, whilst putting your case, doesn't always get peoples' backs up. You need to be reasonably polite. You need to appear at least to be willing to give serious consideration to other peoples' views, even if you think they're complete rubbish. However, in order to gain more than superficial acceptance - to become part of a group of friends, I need to bring something to the members of that group - I need to act for their benefit. If I want to be accepted by others, I need not only to get my round in: I need to listen to their concerns, their stories and help them out when they need it. If I want to take things further, then I may perhaps invite them for meals. I need to act in an altruistic way. Only in this way, will I stand any chance of being accepted as an integral part of a group. And as a member of that group, the others will usually act similarly towards me. Of course my altruism is not altruism in the purest sense. If I am not ultimately accepted by the group, for example because I have the 'wrong' political views, the likelihood of further acts of altruism by me towards any of them will diminish substantially. Although not normally intended to have an immediate pay-back, it is nonetheless therefore altruism with a 'purpose'. But isn't this hypocritical? Yes, in a way it is. But the very fact that the question has such resonance must mean that we have evolved to dislike artificiality in our relationships and this means in turn that there has to be a reason for it. So do we in fact usually calculate what may be the payback when we act for the benefit of another member of the group? No. If we needed to do this, most of our time would be spent very inefficiently in doing those calculations. In practice, we seem to have evolved not to be actors consciously playing a part, but rather to adopt the Stanislavsky approach. We simply don't have the time for overt hypocrisy in the hurry and bustle everyday life. I would suggest that it's more efficient to live the role in the subconscious expectation that it will balance out overall. And so if asked why we acted in the way we did, we will simply say, quite correctly, that it seemed the right thing to do. And if we do things consciously trying to act the part of someone who is nicer than they are, then we feel uncomfortable in our role and, if found out, we shall reap the consequences. This, of course, presumes that we are social animals, something which I take to be the norm amongst human beings. But even those who do not wish to be an integral part of a group may nonetheless act morally - or they may not. They have a choice, although they may not realise it, as most people are educated to believe that to act morally is to listen to a higher authority rather than to act in a way which has evolved, in my view, to reflect what is best for us as a species, what may be described as simple utilitarianism. (For a discusiion of the nature of our choices see Freewill) Of course, there are some groups where what we would normally regard as immoral or even illegal actions are required for acceptance. If I am on a sink estate, then I am likely to find that helping to steal cars is regarded as necessary behaviour if I wish to be a part of certain of the gangs. On the other hand, I shall probably be required to look out for my mates. So then there may be a normal-looking morality at work within a group which acts badly towards outsiders. Or I may wish to become a part of a set of people who take cocaine as a recreational drug, but otherwise act as other people would. In which event there would be pressure for me to conform with their 'habit'. I would be expected to adopt that combination of forms of behaviour which would make me similar to the rest of the group in what they considered to be important respects and so acceptable to them. Pressure to act as my peers act is very important in life. If I fall in with them, then the behaviour demanded by the group becomes in a sense a part of 'my' moral code. It is a very considerable force. For some, who have difficulty seeing things for what they are, this pressure is a just as strong as any 'absolutist' religious morality - although it may be relevant here to point out that religions are simply large groups of people, groups which have sometimes, with success, asked their members to act immorally. But if I am able to see morality for what it is and not assume it to be God-given, then it is possible for me to make a critical assessment of it and change when I see that the result of applying my moral code is to make things worse and not better. It should be noted that this general idea applies not only on a personal scale, but also at the national level. For instance, as a member of a group - the European Union - Britain is required not only to abide by its laws, but also to subscribe to its general ethos. And of course in many ways we don't. It is this difference in ethos which makes us unpopular as a member in various other community countries which do. And in turn, that pressure also makes certain political groupings at home want to get out of it altogether. We are not really integrated into the group. We are often seen to be resisting the pressure of our peers instead of falling in with it. So then, however long we remain within the community and however well we comply with the laws of the EU, we shall always be outsiders as long as our 'moral code' differs from that of the others. And, in its nature, the group will always put pressure on us to do what in their eyes is the 'right thing'. PJB 28 January 2008 For a fascinating lecture in the TED series by Paul Zak on the evidence for oxytocin being the molecule which motivates us to act morally,click on the following link - http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_zak_trust_morality_and_oxytocin.html for other essays on related topics see: |