This past year I became intrigued by the concept of our imperfect governing system. Not because of any one political party, but the overall human flaw and error. I wrote an essay on the subject of morality in our nation today. I would like to give the opportunity for you to read and anylize this essay. I would then like to pick it apart and explain, and ponder the deeper questions found in the context. My sources included many quotes from the Socrates era:
In past centuries a struggle has taken place throughout the facets of humanity to decide how man should be governed. It is evident in recent and even ancient history, that if man is not ruled by some outside force, he will eventually destroy himself. The way in which government attempts to enforce this rule of law reveals multiple problems. Firstly, how is governing power attained? Is it acceptable for a monarch to rule, simply because of bloodline? Secondly, if a ruler is elected is there an effective way to balance power so that tyranny does not ensue? And finally, is even the most effective government somehow merely the lesser of evils? Our nation has been settled as a republic in a democracy. This form of government solves most of the theoretically problematic attributes of a ruling body, though many problems still remain unsolved. If justice is defined as a state of affairs in which everyone is treated equally, this "justice" may be shown to be ethically untenable. (Bowes 23) How can equality be guarded, if morality is left up to the individual, and the individual believes that all men are not equal?
True democracy, by definition, is "A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." (Webster) The power is placed upon the people, and is thus creating a majority rule. Old world philosophers such as Aristotle have noted that the most extreme democracy, in which all share, is something not every state can tolerate, and is not likely to unless it is well held together by its laws and customs (O'Hear 51) This means that human error and lawlessness present a direct threat to government, and will eventually lead to the question "Is man naturally evil?" This is why most arguments can be broken down to the question of morals and ethics.
Our nation has chosen democracy as the most effective and prosperous form of government. Our initial example suggests that democracy in itself is not sufficient for a truly "good" government. One may interpret 'good' in various ways. If good is said to be morally right, then we have already "dragged ethics into this". In the usual arguments, the opposition to morality in government may take the stand of David Hume in a long-past, well known debate between him and Immanuel Kant. Hume believed that a human life was as simple and unnecessary "as the life of an oyster", and that if that statement is correct (which according to modern science, it is.) then when a human loses a sense of value for his life he should be allowed to end it. (Rachels 57) This was not taken well by Kant. Human life, he said, is valuable "above all price," and few would disagree. He also admitted that in the context of particular ethical issues – suicide, abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, the treatment of defective newborns – the meaning and application of this principle are uncertain. (Rachels 49) Morality is bordering on the admission of absolute truth which, in our day and age is a touchy subject. In our countries earlier years, if one disagreed with the settled ideas of our founding fathers, there would be strict and sometimes deadly consequences. This is yet another example of "pure" democracy. (Pure in the sense of a strictly logical practice). The same can be said about the state of affairs in current events. "The majority rules" is a common phrase, and in reality a frightening one. Majority rule can be used to tyrannize, to quash good government, to restrict freedom, and to close down openness in a society. (O'Hear 50) For example: Person A believes that Person B and all other people with a crooked eyebrow are threatening and therefore must be terminated for the good of humanity. Person A, and all those with symmetrical facial features vote on this issue. Person B is the minority. In a truly democratic system, Person B would be killed on account of his eyebrow. The question then arises, is democracy just? We could even take this idea a step further. If the majority of the people wish death upon a group or even an individual, the democratic system can be used in a terrifying manner.
Another problem with democracy is the government, and the elected body itself. One a-Socratic view on this issue states that ethics consists entirely in self-interest. Each person should "look out for number one" and leave everyone else to do the same. This is one of our countries most common, practiced beliefs. (Rachels 121) Because of this kind of belief, the elected leaders may become inclined to act the same, making decisions based on their opinions or agenda. If government does not have some way to create, define, and enforce a law system, the result is devastating. Eventually, in the ensuing lawlessness, democratic despots become dominant, paving the way for straight-forward tyranny. In a society which is dominated by majority public opinion, traditional values and standards are likely to come under assault, particularly if they seem to be standing in the way of instant gratification or egalitarian attitudes. (O'Hear 47) Democracy, and nearly every other form of government, is hopelessly effective when it lacks a moral compass.
The answer than is simply to incorporate some sort of ethical standard into our justice system, that defines right and wrong correctly, and also presents appropriate actions to enforce those laws. This is anything but simple. In the history and foundation of America, Biblical principles were used to form our nation. The Ten Commandments were taught in schools, and were also the basis for our laws. According to this picture, God created the world and laid down the laws that govern its operation. The natural conclusion is, therefore, that living rightly is simply living in accordance with these divine commandments. (Rachels 123) The decline in morality in our country has been brought about very ironically. Firstly, America has always held the title of "Melting Pot". This includes nationality, culture, and ethical stand-points. If the majority decides that to better our nation, a moral standard must be decided on, the minority groups are still unsatisfied and thus true justice has still not been served. But is "true" justice the answer either? In cases like this, an imperfect change is better than no change at all.
Nearly all modern, historical philosophers will agree that our nation was originally based "under God", but many believe that the changing times require a new standard of belief and action. Not that these presented ideas are really new ideas. Early philosophers such as John Locke, Voltaire, even Socrates and Aristotle, all presented non-scripturally based ideas that were taken into account for the skeleton of our system of government. Every society has its conventions – its policies regarding acceptable and unacceptable conduct. A society's ethical code is the summation of such policies, and the various social codes, according to the relativist, are all that exist. There is nothing more, and it is a mistake to go looking for "absolute" values because in reality there are none. Today many social scientists regard ethics in this manner. (Rachels 118)
This completely opposite opinion creates a huge rift between government, and religion. Still, (according to the old philosophers,) it may be thought that God's commands provide the ultimate authority for ethics, and this is the issue that Socrates addressed. (Rachels 124) Voltaire famously said " I disagree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."(O'Hear 115) In most current debate, even the right so speak out is being challenged.
Unlike the ancient philosophers, the new idealists create a sort of supremacist view. These a-traditional ideas are evident in works such as "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, and Peter Levin's book Living Without Philosophy. Works like this have been known to cause major irritations to Evangelical Americans, yet the as the author's and there supporters are pushing for tolerance and acceptance, trampling on traditional beliefs seems to be perfectly acceptable. In The God Delusion, Dawkins argues that God is not only irrational, but harmful to society. In reality the believer and the nonbeliever are in exactly the same position, where morality is concerned. The religious believer has no special knowledge that is not accessible to the rest of us. We must all try to figure out what to do by examining the reasons that support our choices, without anyone being able to claim special privilege. Again, Socrates stressed that this conclusion is not reached by denying the truth of religion. (Rachels 125) In comparison with ancient philosophers, Dawkins and Levine seem to offer no helpful perspectives. Looking at Richard Dawkin's argument logically, one can immediately detect flaw. A parallel example may be presented: That dog does not exist; He has already bitten five people, thus, he is dangerous. This idea is a blatant contradiction. If something is not in existence, it cannot carry out action.
A step further into the idea of strong change in traditional morality, is simply to deny the existence of the necessity for ethics. Levine argues that we do not need ethical theories, rules, and other principles to decide what is right. He also states that when our judgments differ, we can decide how to act by "deliberation under fair conditions." The basic idea here is to merely destroy any traditional value. If no theories or rules are necessary for decision making, how can one decide what a "fair condition" is? Could it be really left up to the individual? According to Socrates, in such social settings, morality is not considered to be something private to the individual; it is more like a public institution in which all participate. (Rachels 126) Another example: Person A is a strong believer in revenge. Person B is a strong believer in Socialism. His view of Socialism however, is not well liked because contains the idea that if the rich have the wealth, spreading the wealth to society is the poor man's duty. (This would be similar to the Robin Hood, idea of "robbing the rich to feed the poor.") Person B is planning on spreading the wealth to him and his family. If the scene is played out and each character acts according to his hypothesized attribute, the end result would be the murder of Person B by Person A. According to Levine's theory, Person B was acting on his belief, as was Person A. In the traditional and Biblical theory, Person B would be stopped before the robbery took place, because robbery has been obviously stamped as legally and morally wrong.
It is easy to see that without logically based morality, government is sure to topple. This idea has multiple sides and may be interpreted in various ways, creating a barrier that stands in the way of improvement. After reading current articles, reports, and even published hard copy literature, the decline in morality is astounding. Not-so-much the loss of morals themselves, but the suppression of reason. In the state of current debate, words could very well be said to hold no meaning. If morality and definition of terms is left solely up to the individual, then words are nothing. Even the reader of this paper would merely be wasting time. That is, if time exists. These past statements seem illogical; they strikes us in a shocking and almost comical way. But without a standard to go by, this is where any argument and decision making process will end up. This case is an extreme example of a lack of absolute truth. And while none can speak openly of it, nor claim to believe it, nor acknowledge its existence, all should be exceedingly grateful of its existence. Without it we would be nothing.
