Can this writer not succumb to the temptation to state: “I’m baaack.”
He obviously cannot. With this
posting, this blog ends the respite its writer enjoyed. To provide some sort of context, this
is, by the writer’s counting, the 801st posting of this blog. So, here goes another 400 entries before the
next rest; at least that’s the plan.
To begin, a question is offered, one that
civics teachers should consider: Is one
a good person because it makes sense to be good – goodness leads to being
liked, gaining cooperation, enjoying heart-enriching company, etc. – or because
it is part of one’s nature? Thomas Reid
wrote the following:
Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to
this object. He was endowed with a sense
of right and wrong, merely relative to this.
This sense is as much a part of his nature as the sense of hearing,
seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality, and not the kalon,
truth, etc., as fanciful writers have imagined.
The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or
arm. It is given to all human beings in
a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or
less degree. It may be strengthened by
exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some
degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required
for this; even a less one than what we call common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a
professor. The former will decide it as
well and often better than the latter because he has not been led astray by
artificial rules.[1]
Reid, in other words, argues that people have, beyond a moral
reason, a moral sense. Being moral is
just part of being human.
But is this
not just another way a person seeks pleasure, which a la John Locke is universal?
Writers like Reid make the observation that when a person does something
good to others, it feels good; it’s pleasurable. So, as Locke might have said, this seeking
goodness is just another expression of the pleasure drive; a drive people are
born to pursue.
Further, this drive, at times,
competes with other drives. Like
what? The drives to secure material
comforts, to secure physical pleasures, to satisfy ego-induced feelings, and
the like. These drives seem to vie for a
person’s commitment.
And these drives often lead to
immoral behaviors. After all, moralists
of the past have thought of categories of immorality, such as the seven deadly
sins.[2] And the word deadly is used to indicate that
placating these associated drives lead to unhappy endings.
Why?
Because they often rely on doing harm to others. There are even arguments that when no one
else is involved, possibly as with gluttony, and the harm is on oneself, one
has a moral obligation to take care of oneself.
This last position does engender some controversy, but such self-harm is
seldom not injurious to others.
Potential harm can be directed toward
loving family members or fellow-insured people who, through their premiums, pay
extra due to unnecessary self-abuse among the populous. “No man is an island” and this trope applies
most stridently to the effects of immoral behavior. This can get complicated.
Be that as it may, Thomas Jefferson
saw morality as purely a social concern.[3] This writer, in describing the morality
associated with federation theory, has also described morality in this
way. But by so doing, one does need to
be careful. The possibility of affecting
others by one’s behavior at times is quite clear and visible, but at other
times, not so much.
One needs to be honest here and not
rationalize away with cheap mental gymnastics the responsibility for the harm
one does to others. This can be tricky
as the just mentioned example indicate.
Actually, at times, it is quite easy to hurt others when that is not the
intent. If one wants to avoid such
incidences, one has the responsibility to think before one acts.
Given this competition between
drives, one can still make the claim that to be moral is part of being
human. It is also a factor – an interest
– as one calculates one’s situation when it comes time to decide what one will
do. Jefferson saw the moral sense as
man’s highest source of happiness: “the
brightest gem with which the human character is studded.”[4] And, further, if one accepts this
designation, this is the basis of equality.
As described in previous postings –
when this blog reviewed federation theory’s case for equality – even though
people might vary in their levels of talent and other assets, they are equal in
their consent. Jefferson adds some
clarification regarding this more general claim. He sees all are essentially equal because
having a moral sense opens a person accountable to him/herself and to
others.
This permits the creation of a polity
based on self-governance since the ability to consent, to be accountable,
allows the common man, the ploughman as well as the professor, to meet the
inherent social obligations such a polity demands. Or, as this blog has referred to federal
liberty: the freedom to do what one
should do.
And what of the faculty of
reason? Well, reason, according to
another writer of Jefferson’s time, Francis Hutcheson, functions as a targeting
agent; it decides in what direction and in what style a person decides to be
moral. Conditions present moral
challenges or events in a variety of situations.
Mere intuition or emotionally spurred
reaction(s) often lead to less than harmless results. The use of reason helps to minimize such
eventualities. Some call this type of
distinction as being the difference between ends and means. But while reason can play a helpful role –
assuming the end goal is to be moral – it can also be used to manipulate the
factors involved.
Mentally, one strongly wants a given
end – perhaps one that causes harm or causes more harm than other alternatives
– and self-deception takes place or, if not self-deception, the concern is in
how resulting behavior might be judged by others, and that person rationalizes
by choosing an immoral option.
Reason is a tool for good or evil;
but long-term, reason points to morality.
It is also subject to faulty performance – it errs. Or it is subject of varying forces like those
emanating from the culture with its biases or erroneous bits of “common”
knowledge that is not knowledge at all.
They are instead prejudices, that have become accepted without
question.
All of these hinder the function of
reason. They are often inordinately
driven by emotions and resulting rationalization can take on a reasoned appearance
that everyone needs to be on guard against in order to be truly reasonable. The use of logos, in appearance, can be false
logos.
People dealing with these issues –
back in the days of Jefferson and even today – should consider reasoning that
directs a person to be altruistic or in any way directs his/her behaviors to
assist others should not counter a basic insight Locke points out.
That is, “man automatically and
infallibly pursues pleasure.”[5] A person might err in his/her calculations,
but the aim is always to induce pleasure.
As it turns out, helping, assisting, coming to the aid of others induces
pleasurable sensations within the person so acting. Whether one agrees with that or not,
Jefferson seemed to have agreed with it.
The next posting will pick up on this
theme and proceed to further develop this notion of pleasure seeking, reason,
moral sense and how they affected Jefferson’s use of the term,
“inalienable.” Turns out, how most
students are led to understand this term is not exactly right.
[1] As quoted in Gary Wills, Inventing
America: Jefferson’s Declaration of
Independence
(New York, NY: Vintage Books,
1978/2018), 202-203. The argument here
is described and explained by Wills in this cited work. To bolster this message, there are current
writers, albeit a bit nuanced, do seem to agree with Reid. See Robert M.
Sapolsky, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst
(New York, NY: Penguin Press, 2017. Of interest are human’s potential to opt
anti-cheating reactive behaviors and the role of the frontal cingulate cortex
(ACC) in empathic reactions to the misfortunes of others. Also, Sapolsky writes of the role oxytocin
play in humans pairing and bonding, making them more charitable, more sensitive
parents or parenting, more prosocial, more concerned with social approval, and
more responsive to social approval or reinforcement. So, the moral sense does seem to have a basis
in human biology.
[2] Reminder: they
are envy, gluttony, greed or avarice, lust, pride, sloth, and wrath.
[4] Ibid., 211.
[5] Ibid., 212.
