How do we know what is good, and what prompts us to do what is good? These are the essential questions that deal with ethics or morality. I am, for purposes of these talks, using the words synonymously, though I am aware that others make a distinction. Both ethics and morality refer to the obligations we have to seek the good and to do the good. But where does that knowledge come from, and where do we gain the motivation to do it?
There are four main answers to this question that I know about. The first is that our ideas about morality are shaped by custom, and our desire to act morally is a result of social pressure. There is much to be said for this view. Let's face it: the herd mentality guides much of our behavior. What passes for social life in most colleges is really just a matter of conforming to certain customs. The motive for doing so is to gain acceptance and approval, and to avoid rejection. This template then guides the remainder of life.
The second answer to the question is that certain kinds of behavior are programmed into o our genes. I have learned become aware that studies of chimpanzees reveal a certain kind of morality. Adult chimps will come to the aid of a young chimp, even at the cost of their lives. Furthermore, chimps, I am told, keep tabs on each other, and they return favors. This kind of behavior, which is also the basis of the morality that we see demonstrated in, for example, the Sopranos, may be genetically wired. Evolution may have favored those species whose adult members sacrifice themselves for the young, and in which aggression is kept in check by tribal bonding. This kind of behavior also passes for conventional morality among many humans.
The third answer is that morality is a result of reason. Reason shows us what is good, and our motivation to do the good is that we can reasonably understand that doing the good, even when it involves self-sacrifice, serves a purpose larger than ourselves. From this point of view, reason is our most precious gift. It alone can guide us through ethical quandaries; it alone can enable us to transcend narrow self-interest for the greater good. So, from this point of view, doing what is good is a matter of doing what is reasonable. This kind of morality enables us, apparently, to transcend the bonds of convention, and the destiny of our genes and instincts. It also allows us, some say, to transcend the irrationality of religion.
And that, of course, is the fourth source. Some - many - have argued that the basis of morality comes through the revelations - or discoveries - and teachings of religion. All religions teach adherents to behave in a certain way, because certain authoritative teachers have said that one should do so. In the case of Buddhism, it is because the teachers have told us that this is the path that leads to enlightenment; in the case of Judaism and Christianity and Islam, it is because the transcendent God has given a divine law that humans must obey. Obedience to the teaching, or the law, brings reward; disobedience brings destruction and punishment. While these religious teachings can be assessed rationally, their authority finally rests upon something that transcends reason; their authority rests upon revelation.
So, how do we decide? How do we judge between these options? Is morality a matter of simple conventionality, or is it genetically programmed instincts, or is it a matter of reason, or a matter of revelation? Does it matter?
I think it does matter. Each perspective does accurately describe a certain kind of morality, but each one also has limitations. For example, conventional morality, as common as it is, is commonly wrong. We know it is wrong because it has led people to conform to slavery, infanticide, torture and much else that now appears simply wrong, no matter how widely accepted such practices may have been or may now be. If we can not rise above conventionality, and - let's face it - many times we can't - we have no standard but the standard of the herd. I am unwilling to accept that. Genetic programming does at least offer the promise of a certain kind of universality - presumably, we are all programmed alike - but it also means that we can only do what we are programmed to do. And we know that isn't true. Different people, in similar situations, behave differently. Some, we judge, to behave admirable, others abominably. Clearly we judge people to be responsible for their behavior.
So that leaves us with reason and religion as sources for a morality that transcends mere convention. We do something either because we have figured out that it is the right thing to do, and we have a rational commitment to doing the right thing, or because we adhere to a sacred story that provides some grounding for morality that goes beyond what we, alone, can figure out.
The problem is that both models provide good examples and bad examples. Take the model based on reason: there are many people, some call themselves humanists, who live a deeply ethical life. They share their wealth, engage in helpful volunteer activities, behave in a restrained and thoughtful way, and teach their children to be considerate of others. We all know such people, and we can not help but admire them. On the other hand, people who have adhered only to reason for their morality have also, in the last century, been convinced that exterminating certain groups or races was a rational contribution to the advancement of humanity. Even today, those who calculate our nation's defense are quite willing to rely upon a calculus of body counts: we loose 300, they lose 10,000 - we win.
So what about religion? Always good? Obviously not. Blaise Pascal once observed that "men never do evil so cheerfully and completely as when they do so from religious conviction." But at the same time, we have examples of people who are willing to sacrifice all that is conventionally rewarding in order to live out a kind of love that their faith demands and sustains. When we see it, we know to be good. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr, Mother Teresa - all come to mind.
So do we need religion to be good? I think we do. But it is not just any kind of religion. It is a particular kind. The scripture today describes it: (Micah 6:6-8) "God has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" Justice, kindness, and humility. Who can dispute that these are the goods of life? Well, many people actually. If I have wronged a person, I do not think justice is good. If I am by nature an arrogant person, kindness and humility are just a waste of effort. But when we have been wronged, justice is precious; when we have been needy, kindness is a balm that heals; when we have encountered the arrogance of the powerful, humility promises redemption. The test of morality is not chiefly how it preserves the powerful, but how it protects the powerless. That's not just my opinion. It's what Jesus said: I was naked …. I was hungry … I was thirsty …. I was sick …. I was a stranger …. I was a prisoner ….. I'll take my stand with him.
copyright © 2005 Richard R. Crocker
