In previous postings, this blog has made a claim: equality is based on the idea that, despite
variance among people in terms of talent, intelligence, and other qualities,
every person of normal mental capacity has an equal capacity to consent. In addition, according to writers of the
eighteenth century and even current scholars, people are also equal in having a
moral sense – a sense over what is right and wrong. The difference is: today, that latter belief is more nuanced.
Part of the nuance
is based on more sophisticated research.
An important, current book, by Robert Sapolski,[1] makes
the case of how “human” it is to see the social world in terms of “us-versus-them.” But then it introduces a salvo; i.e., while
this tribalistic tendency serves to motivate a great deal of immorality, there
is a bright spot:
Spelled out this way, these findings
don’t seem to bode well for humans. We
have evolved to support our immediate social groups, a tendency that can be
easily manipulated into discriminatory behavior, especially at younger
ages. The good news, according to Sapolsky,
is that there are always individuals who
resist the temptation to discriminate and won’t conform to harmful acts based
on othering or hierarchy.
…
he offers suggestions for how we might subvert social tendencies to conform and
aim our behavior towards better social ends.
For example, his advice to counter xenophobia includes “emphasizing
individuation and shared attributes, perspective taking, more benign
dichotomies, learning hierarchical differences, and bringing people together on
equal terms with shared goals.”[2]
It is this call for equality that serves to allow a federated
sense among citizens in a functional polity.
Morality, when
seen through secular eyes, is practical.
This writer is currently reading the novel, A Column of Fire, by Ken Follett.[3] Follett gives a vivid account of how
religious conflict, in sixteenth century Europe, served to hinder the
progression of those nations that were enmeshed in the often-violent, intra-national
fighting between those who supported Catholic beliefs against those who opted
for Protestant beliefs and Protestants behaving the same way, a form of us-versus-them.
It took
leaders, such as Queen Elizabeth I, to lead their nations beyond this crippling
antagonism and, as a consequence, advance the nation as truly national entities. But such a move, at some level, depends on
the citizenry to share a federated sense among themselves. This can be generalized to all social
arrangements and, at its base, must be accepted as a moral foundation.
Given this
fundamental sense, how do various political/governmental decisions reflect these
concerns? If one sees equality in these
terms, one cannot help but see the interrelationship between the value,
equality, and the value, justice. This
blog gives definitions for both:
·
Equality, according to federation
theory, refers to the belief that despite inequality in talent, wealth, health
or other assets, the entailed value calls for equal consideration of all
persons’ well-being, that all have an equal right to maintain their dignity and
integrity as individual persons.
·
And justice is the commitment
to give everyone his/her due based on a realistic view of dispersed or
accumulated advantages.
Of
course, if one is xenophobic, then in any community or society that has any
level of various cultural traditions, one would be challenged to being either a
defender of equality or a practitioner of justice. Given the demographic realities of most
countries, being moral, therefore, would be a challenge to many. As a matter of fact, the current upsurge of nationalism
can be seen in this light.
Further, one can analyze many moral
questions in this light. In the upcoming
postings, this blog will visit the work of Michael J. Sandel, Justice:
What’s the Right Thing to Do?[4]
In that work, Sandel offers a number of scenarios or situations that present
moral questions – some needing or calling for changes in governmental policies. For example: should war veterans who suffer from post-traumatic
stress disorder be eligible or granted the Purple Heart medal?
[1] Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst
(New York, NY: Penguin Press, 2017).
[2] C. Brandon Ogbunu, “Why Do People Do Bad Things?,” Greater Good Magazine, December 1, 2017,
accessed March 14, 2019, https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/why_do_people_do_bad_things . Emphasis
added.
[3] Ken Follett, A
Column of Fire (New York, NY:
Viking, 2017).
[4] Michael J. Sandel, Justice:
What’s the right thing to do?
(New York, NY: Farrar, Straus,
and Giroux, 2009).
No comments:
Post a Comment