Morality from the Inside Out

i wrote an ethics paper and then revised it a bit so it's more...bloggy, i guess? okay so nothing i've written on this 'blog' is even remotely bloggy. and i'm okay with that. i promise not to say 'bloggy' anymore.

i'll just get on with it then.

Throughout the history of civilization the human race has found it necessary to impose some sort of moral code upon the people of its societies. The form of this moral code has varied from age to age, but its aim has more or less remained constant: to seek to create a flourishing society. In most cases, the moral code imposed upon the masses has been one that aims to control the baser desires and tendencies of so-called human nature in order to keep things orderly. It is thought that society must be controlled or it will disintegrate into immoral chaos. Such a claim presupposes, incorrectly, that humans are inherently evil or “sinful” by nature, and can only be motivated to morality by way of fear, guilt, and shame.

This moral system of negative reinforcement, which is the current system imposed on the majority of world citizens today, is much less effective in producing flourishing cultures than an Aristotelian system which builds morally developed citizens from the inside-out, driven solely by the individual’s intent to be morally developed. The modern system is so ineffective because it fails to understand not only human nature, but as well the process by which morality is cultivated in humans. Fear-based, negatively reinforced moral systems may keep a society from getting out of line for a time, generally speaking; however, as history has consistently shown, they cannot and will not develop flourishing societies. The entire Western world = case in point.

The main issue with such a system is in its implementation. Morality is imposed upon the populous as laws and rules to be adhered to. This puts power over the individual in the hands of those who are judging behavior according to the rules, and in so doing sets up a system of heteronomy, stifling free and autonomous thinking. In this breeding ground for superiority and inferiority mindsets, individuals must derive their self-worth from the approval and judgment of others. This is the system we have in place despite the fact that it is widely held that seeking self-fulfillment in anything outside of oneself is an emotionally unhealthy practice! I would argue that it is not only unhealthy, but an impossible and fruitless endeavor!

Instead of creating people of sound moral character, the system creates a society of fear-driven people who seek to commit morally good acts to avoid punishment, guilt and exclusion, or to gain approval, praise and reward. Citizens are constantly fraught with anxiety, worry, doubt and fear. Morality is not cultivated in this way, only guilt, resentment, dishonesty, destructive attachment, subservience, and blind obedience. Furthermore, as resentment grows, so does resistance to authority, eventually leading to widespread rebellion, chaos, and finally revolution (still crossing my fingers for that last one). Understanding how people are inspired to be moral is an essential consideration when developing moral theory. When we scrutinize this vital element we see that it has everything to do with the virtues.

So what are the virtues and how are they cultivated? Are they the root cause of truly moral acts? Leslie Stephen (a virtue ethicist) states that “morality is internal. The moral law…has to be expressed in the form, “be this,” not in the form, “do this."” Virtues are a way of being. Being begets a specific way of doing; it is not the other way around. What we do does not make us who we are; our actions do not describe our being, nor do they create our being. Our actions are created out of our state of being.

With this in mind we see that we cannot judge one’s morality by one’s acts, for according to Hume (another ethicist), “…the external performance has no merit…all virtuous actions derive their merit only from virtuous motives.” Our acts are a product and a reflection of our state of being; therefore, being, not doing, should be our focus. To correct our actions we must correct our state of being. But to whom does the realm of being belong? Can being be imposed upon an individual by an outside force (the state)? Certainly not! One cannot affect change in another's being. Like love, being cannot be compelled; it must be free.

Since being can only be affected internally by the individual, any attempts by outward forces to impose a state of being on an individual will invariably produce unsuccessful and even destructive results, just as they do in the state’s attempt to influence doing, described above. The question then becomes, what is society’s role in the development of moral character? According to Louis Pojman (yup...ethicist), “the state…should actively encourage citizens to inculcate the virtues, which in turn are the best guarantee of a flourishing political order.” Note the key word here is “encourage,” not “command.” The state should not impose the development of character upon its citizens if it desires any positive results.

When good acts and good habits form out of our individual intent to develop our moral character, we feel empowered instead of commanded. There is no cause for resentment because we have only ourselves to answer to. We cease seeking approval and avoiding guilt and instead begin to seek the Good for its own sake. This is the only way the cultivation of character, and consequently, morality, is realized.

Furthermore, taking this personal approach eradicates much of the deliberation and hair-splitting that takes place in duty ethics and consequentialism. There will be no need to figure out the “right” action to take. If we cultivate the virtues through practice, we will do the Good without having to analyze what is the best action. Our virtues will create in us a disposition to act morally. As Aristotle puts it in the Nicomachean Ethics, “If activities are…what determines the character of life, no blessed man can become miserable; for he will never do the acts that are hateful and mean.”

One may ask, “What about the just and compassionate man who neglects someone in need? Are we to say that this act makes him no longer just and compassionate? Doesn’t this negate the claim that virtuous character begets virtuous deeds?” The answer is yes and no for the first question, and no for the second. It is important to remember that by the very nature of ethics and morality (and life itself for that matter), nothing is black and white; every situation is made up of infinite shades of gray.

The man in question is still just and compassionate, but only to that extent which he expresses through his acts. We now know, for instance, from his act, that he is not completely just and compassionate. His neglect of the person in need does not negate his goodness, but it does make apparent the incompleteness of his virtue. We know from his act that, good as he is, there is still room for improvement in the state of his being, for were he not still lacking in virtue, he would not have neglected the person in need. In this way our acts negate neither our goodness nor the importance of virtue, but instead become a gauge of our progress in our development of the virtues (the soul). Acts we judge as "bad" become wonderful gifts of awareness! Since morality is not being imposed upon us, we are not judged for our acts, but are made self aware by them. The process of attaining high morality is completely self-evaluative as well as self-sustaining.

One may also ask, “If development of moral character falls on the individual, how do we ensure individuals will engage in this work?” The answer is that we do not and cannot and should not even attempt to ensure anything. Remember that our only concern, the only thing we have any power over, is our own development. What is important is that we see the big picture and realize that the current state of being of most people is not likely to change. A lifetime of backwards thinking is difficult to reverse. However, by encouraging new additions to our society from the day they are born to develop their moral character instead of imposing on them fear-based moral codes, we will begin to gradually change the state of consciousness and usher in a new perception of human nature as virtuous and Good-seeking. God-seeking. Humans will be like the bacteria that become immune to antibiotics after many generations of natural selection weed out the vulnerable. It is not the best analogy, but the point is clear. A shift in consciousness will occur, and without any destructive outward imposition.

A personal application of virtue ethics frees us of guilt, fear, and shame and ensures the development of right motive and pursuit of the Good for its intrinsic value. The modern principle and duty-based moral codes imposed on us now by religion, government and even our parents seek to control the acts of an individual without realizing that the acts of an individual are merely a reflection of the individual’s state of being. This is like expecting a child to perform well on an exam without ever giving her a text book to study from. As with all issues, the only sane approach to resolution is to address the issue’s root cause. In this case, the root cause of undesirable acts is undesirable character, state of being, or consciousness.

Morality (love, the Good, God) must be sought for its own sake—because it is in our best interest; because it enriches our experience and nurtures our soul. Morality must also be cultivated only by our own free will and only through the development of our personal character; because it cannot otherwise be realized. How do we make our societies virtuous and flourishing; free of hate, fear, guilt and deceit? By freeing ourselves of these things, not others—by making ourselves virtuous. We are the only ones who can do this work. We are in fact the ones we’ve been waiting for.

Shall we get started then?

I know this was an incredibly long read. So, as always, thank You and God bless.

bryan