When it comes to “right” or “wrong” it seems that, increasingly, there is a continuum from one extreme to the other and little agreement as to where in that long line any particular thing resides. Even the most heinous of acts can – from some perspectives – have some aspect of ‘good’ about them. Equally – something done with the best of intentions can be portrayed as evil – if the ‘wrong’ slant is put on it.
The ‘quantification’ of rightness need not be the inverse of the quantification of wrongness either. All of this, of course, makes the issue of making any sort of ‘moral’ judgement much more difficult. In a previous post (and I can’t locate it just at the moment) I argued that there is no such thing as a ‘wrong’ decision – in the context in which that decision is taken. It is only in hindsight that we may see the error.
So with any judgements – whatever someone does, they are doing – AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME – what they think is ‘right’. It would be incorrect to say that they did the ‘wrong’ thing – for them – for their circumstances – and given the knowledge and skills that they had at the time.
However, in any society, it is necessary to ‘judge’ a person’s actions by the ‘standards’ of society – that is a necessary thing. The ‘shrinking’ world – where everyone is becoming much ‘closer’ to each other thanks to the ability to travel and interact with relative ease – means that different ‘standards’ are clashing more often. That means that the “object all sublime” of Gilbert’s Mikado to “make the punishment fit the crime” becomes impossibly difficult to achieve – since whose rules are being broken?
In the “olden days” it could be (simplistically) said that you only ever came in contact with the folks in the next village – and since they were “them” and you were “us” the only contact would be in some sort of conflict. The “us” and “them” groupings persist – but as time has passed, so the lines are blurred and , importantly, there is much less ‘physical’ separation – resulting in many, many clashes – not just with your neighbour (or at least, still with your neighbour, but that neighbour may be on the other side of the world – or they may be inside your own house).
In some respects the differences are obvious – and in those it becomes relatively easy to understand why there is a conflict. However, in many more cases the “culture” that underlies the two sides are simply so different that it becomes impossible to ‘recognise’ the other side’s position. Take the concept of “fairness”.
So often we might hear “its not fair” – but what does fair mean? Does it mean distributions that are equal to all, or distributions that are according to the input (value? – and that is a potentially controversial term as well) of each individual? These two, alternative, views of fair could each be appropriate depending on the situation. Yet, there are many, many situations where it is rather difficult to justify and – of course – those who “lose out” will always point out that “its not fair”!!!
The thing is – treating people ‘equally’ does not mean treating them exactly the same!! We have also seen many instances where “positive discrimination” is used. So – is “positive” discrimination any better than plain old discrimination? The argument could go either way. (and here I am not going to pursue the ‘answers’ – my aim is to highlight the problems, not solve them, there may not be solutions!!)
Although it is well nigh impossible to get anyone to recognise that – sometimes – other ‘cultures’ may have different, but equally ‘valid’ rules there is a way that starts to bring home the issues. This is done by presenting people with situations in which they have a “no win” situation – where, no matter what their choice, they will necessarily go against what they consider to be “fair” or “right”.
Consider, for instance, the situation where you are presented with a choice of saving countless lives – but at the cost of killing your best friend. You know that by letting him live many others will die. What do you do? Here is a situation with no “right” answer. (or is there – I will let you decide)
So – we look at the actions of individuals – in so many instances we could ‘criticise’ them – we could so easily point to what they have ‘done wrong’ – but then you have to think is it really their ‘fault’ – are there extenuating circumstances – were they caught in a “no win” bind – damned if they do, damned if they don’t? Unfortunately we are usually much too quick to judge – we do NOT usually give the alternatives much thought. Why, however, do we decide one way – and not the other?
From much detailed research it seems that there is, perhaps not surprisingly, a cross cultural set of qualitative drivers that sway our judgements when it comes to these matters of what could be grouped into ‘morality’ issues. They are :
- loyalty – we will tend to side with those that are ‘closer’ to us;
- fairness – by whatever way that we deem fair to be achieved (and I pointed out above how difficult that one is);
- sanctity – by this I take it to mean there are some things that (for each of us individually) are so deeply ingrained that NOTHING will sway the fact that crossing that particular line is ‘bad’;
- respect for authority – we do, in general, play “by the rules” and we expect others to do so as well – equally we will follow orders, and expect others to do so as well (whether or not the orders satisfy our judgement of being “good” or not);
- liberty – freedom is something we each hold dear to – if coercion (of whatever type) is involved then that will tend to make us side with the victim of it; and finally
- care – perhaps this could have been put more strongly as love – whatever, our judgements will be biased in favour of what (or who) we care about.
You will doubtless recognise that all of these are measured subjectively – they also can, in themselves, generate conflict – you think perhaps of the mother who has a son accused of a crime – her loyalty and her respect for authority are very much in conflict. So – there is no ‘simple’ explanation for our own – very personal – set of reactions. If we can understand that, then it may just become more possible to accept the very different reactions of someone from a different culture or background.
If we can recognise the dilemma presented in the example above where our own set of criteria is challenged and we are put in a “no win” situation then perhaps, just a little, we can begin to allow others to have a very different set of criteria – as a Christian, perhaps one can begin to understand the actions and beliefs of the Muslim; as a victim of apartheid, perhaps one can begin to understand – just a little – the reasons why some thought it necessary; as a committed feminist, perhaps one can begin to see that not every male dominated part of society is necessarily suitable for ‘equality’ (whatever that may mean!!).