Part of the myth of progress is the assumption that we as moderns have reached the apex of ethical judgement, that we have crossed the path from barbarism to civilization. In other words, we have evolved from a state of crude moral attitudes to one of advanced cultured sensibility. This prejudice towards the past is not as pronounced as it used to be, with the slow-moving collapse of much of modern society giving many a reality check. What lies at the root of this collapse I feel is the confusion over two key concepts of ethics and morality. They are not the same, and a conflation of the two is only a symptom of a larger problem.
What is the difference?
Who is considered 'good' used to be objectively understood. 'Goodness' was a quality that was recognizable based on an individual's character and conduct. Yet today, the universality of goodness no longer seems to be there. Whether you acknowledge someone as good depends heavily on whether you come from a ethical-based mindset or a moral-based mindset.
Ethics (from the Greek 'ethos' meaning custom or habit) relates to the rightness and wrongness regarding the rules of conduct for a person as determined by their society, group or culture. The thrust behind it is that certain types of conduct are either approved or disapproved based on society's understanding of them. Ethics are externally defined by others, and as such are more flexible in the application depending on social, legal and professional perimeters.
Morals relate to the belief of the inherent goodness/badness of our actions and intentions based on higher principles. Morality transcends typical social and cultural boundaries and usually remains less subject to changes or alterations. Morals usually connect to deeply held beliefs of a higher order of existence and the denial of a morally neutral universe.
From the above, it is clear that the most highly ethical person may not necessarily be following any moral code whatsoever, whereas for a deeply moral person choosing to follow an ethical code depends on the degree to which that code corresponds with his or her belief system. Ethics in essence is an externally manifested code while morality is internally driven.
A Bit of History
Ethical theory from Aristotle onwards and throughout the ancient and medieval periods had a strong teleological emphasis, focusing on discovering the best path for life so as to reach a final goal for mankind. Religion provided a deep source of guidance in this effort. The Abrahamic traditions in particular sought their ethical inspiration from the Revealed Texts. Ethical obligations were derived from the moral precepts of Divine Inspiration, and in many cases from their legalistic frameworks as well. Indeed, until the 18th century, "this conviction that there is a divine source of absolute ethical obligation remained almost unchallenged in the history of ethics." (A Brief History of Ethics, 1968)
With the agreed foundation of the Divine as the source of all moral authority and ethics, there was still a wide spectrum of thoughts on how ethics should be formulated, for what intentions and what are the best ways of fulfilling ethical obligations.The range of opinions of philosophers, theologians and scholars from Plato to Al-Ghazzali to Aviccena to Thomas Aquinas is too vast to be covered here in sufficient detail though.
Things began to change with the onset of the secular age. Beginning with William Ockham in the 13th and 14th centuries, the idea was expounded that "moral good or and evil have nothing to do with the internal character of man or his action but rests on the external attribution of a moral quality." (A Brief History of Ethics, 1968) This marked a radical departure from previous theories, in a way externalising the judgement of moral actions rather than looking at morality from what is within.
Gradually, with the emergence of the Deist philosophy in England, ethics was detached from religion as a subject of study, implying that religion may not be the sole source of guidance. Instead of God, "the general will" (or la volonte generale as stated by Rosseau in The Social Contract), which is the collective judgement of the people on moral and social issues, became the criterion for ethical standards. From here emerged a major strand of ethical thought that persists today: utilitarianism (doing something with the intention of the maximizing of social benefit at the least social cost).
The bottom line was that ethical norms were ceasing to be conditioned by moral upbringing, and more by social conventions and pure reasoning.
Where Does that Leave Us?
The modern world concentrates on ethical guidelines with an almost tacit acceptance that long-standing moral norms are no longer publicly relevant. Ethics itself has been reduced to manual of best practices for organized social behaviour rather than a means of moral elevation. There is a difference between being a good worker or a good citizen and being essentially a good human being. You can have individuals who follow all the rules that society puts before them meticulously, but in the end have a vacuum where a soul should be.
The British columnist Peter Hitchen, wrong though he may be on many issues, was correct is stating in his book The Rage Against God that, "to be effectively absolute, a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter." The idea that we are in a morally neutral universe with no objective standard of good or bad is an anathema; yet in much of our day to day functioning, that in practice is how we live our lives. At the very least, knowing the distinction between ethics and morals is important for realising that when it comes to human behaviour, all that glitters is not gold bullion.
No comments:
Post a Comment