"Morality is herd instinct in the individual."- Friedrich NietzscheWe are forever asking our children if they can tell right from wrong, but I wonder if we can do as much for ourselves? The problem with the question is that it assumes "good" and "bad" to be objective, and it assumes that human beings have the power and the insight to tell the two apart. The situation is further complicated by requiring right and wrong to be lasting constants, unchanged by the passage of time or changes in societal structure.
All tribes operate according to a set of rules - however rudimentary or unspoken. These are its morals, and they extend to each of its members, but they have no effect beyond the close-knit community of the tribe. Like medieval knights, constrained to treat each other according to the laws of chivalry but free to abuse the peasants at will, members of a tribe look out for themselves and for their own, but have no interest in the moral codes of other rival tribes. Such a morality is fundamentally amoral, since it treats "right" and "wrong" as subjective and inconstant. To this extent, tribes are inherently amoral.
Even though we like to think of ourselves as freethinking individuals, the group has a strong influence on the mental frame with which we see the world. For instance, we all share the notion that our norms are based on some objective measure. We believe that our standards for dress, social conduct, and the degree of familiarity we permit ourselves to show to one another, are all based on some sort of absolute. Our judgments: this person is rude, that person is perverse; all refer to some norm against which things are measured. Thus, what passes for free, spontaneous exchange is usually a pre-scripted dialogue which then further strengthens the groupthink.
This myth of normalcy is at the heart of the tribal paradigm. A group is defined by its norms, since its members hold to them and those whom it excludes do not. A distinction like this may be justified logically up to a point, but it is ultimately arbitrary: we make judgements according to the laws of the tribe. When someone's actions conform they are judged worthy of our approbation as well as the approbation of the tribe, whereas when they cease to conform they are banished, forced to exist outside the protective umbrella of the tribe. This forms the basis of tribal prejudice.
There are such objective constants as "right" and "wrong" that transcend all we do and think - I am not denying that. What I do deny is that it is possible for any tribe to define them without missing some of the nuance and complexity which they require. Our regulations, therefore, are not predicated on right and wrong but on arbitrary definitions thereof. The claim that our laws are righteous, moreover, elevates them to the status of something to be worshiped, making the lawyers the high priests in a religion which elevates arbitrary definition to the status of fundamental truth. In the end it must be up to the individual to define for himself what is right and what is wrong, and it is his prerogative to do this whatever the tribe might argue to the contrary.
All tribes operate according to a set of rules - however rudimentary or unspoken. These are its morals, and they extend to each of its members, but they have no effect beyond the close-knit community of the tribe. Like medieval knights, constrained to treat each other according to the laws of chivalry but free to abuse the peasants at will, members of a tribe look out for themselves and for their own, but have no interest in the moral codes of other rival tribes. Such a morality is fundamentally amoral, since it treats "right" and "wrong" as subjective and inconstant. To this extent, tribes are inherently amoral.
Even though we like to think of ourselves as freethinking individuals, the group has a strong influence on the mental frame with which we see the world. For instance, we all share the notion that our norms are based on some objective measure. We believe that our standards for dress, social conduct, and the degree of familiarity we permit ourselves to show to one another, are all based on some sort of absolute. Our judgments: this person is rude, that person is perverse; all refer to some norm against which things are measured. Thus, what passes for free, spontaneous exchange is usually a pre-scripted dialogue which then further strengthens the groupthink.
This myth of normalcy is at the heart of the tribal paradigm. A group is defined by its norms, since its members hold to them and those whom it excludes do not. A distinction like this may be justified logically up to a point, but it is ultimately arbitrary: we make judgements according to the laws of the tribe. When someone's actions conform they are judged worthy of our approbation as well as the approbation of the tribe, whereas when they cease to conform they are banished, forced to exist outside the protective umbrella of the tribe. This forms the basis of tribal prejudice.
There are such objective constants as "right" and "wrong" that transcend all we do and think - I am not denying that. What I do deny is that it is possible for any tribe to define them without missing some of the nuance and complexity which they require. Our regulations, therefore, are not predicated on right and wrong but on arbitrary definitions thereof. The claim that our laws are righteous, moreover, elevates them to the status of something to be worshiped, making the lawyers the high priests in a religion which elevates arbitrary definition to the status of fundamental truth. In the end it must be up to the individual to define for himself what is right and what is wrong, and it is his prerogative to do this whatever the tribe might argue to the contrary.
About the Author:
John Berling Hardy helps people free themselves from the grand illusion perpetrated by the players. For more of his writings please visit www.playingtheplayers.com
