Scott Gibson: Society's sense of morality forged through interaction
I recently read a thoughtful Washington Post commentary by Utah governor Spenser Cox and Harvard philosopher Ian Marcus Corbin warning of “the consequences of America’s moral drift.” Their thesis is that many Americans, awash in consumerism and unprotected from corporations that target our psychological weaknesses, have fallen into lives of addiction and meaningless self-indulgence.
I agree.
Americans currently appear more disconnected from one another on a personal level than ever before. Church attendance and membership in non-religious social organizations — think Lions Clubs, bowling leagues and so forth — have long been sagging.
People spend more time on devices that are riddled with content tempting us into overconsumption, gambling and solitary entertainment. Person-to-person contact is dwindling.
Cox and Corbin see a solution to this morass through a national realignment. They suggest a “moral or spiritual orientation” would bring us together as a more integrated community.
Perhaps. But even if true, how would this return to morality come about?
The authors suggest overturning what they see as decades of political misdirection. And here’s where they get it wrong.
“For some time now, we have imagined that robust moral judgments should be relegated to the private sphere, places such as churches, homes and private schools. Government, work, public schools and universities, in this vision, should not only remain neutral on large questions of the good life, but should generally avoid those questions, for fear of starting conversations where perfect agreement is impossible.”
Contrary to their assertion, “robust moral judgment” has been and remains the purview of politics. Moral judgment, after all, is about balancing the interests of one person or group against others to create what we call fairness.
Population-scale morality is managed through politics and laws.
Spiritual judgment is distinct, relating to the individual’s relationship to their God or gods. That’s the realm of religion, not politics.
Morality is based on preventing harm while respecting individual freedom, whether you adhere to Jesus or Muhammad or Zeus or no doctrine at all. But life is not equal.
Denying someone a gun may make others safer, but may it also put the person denied the weapon at risk? And at what decibel level is your neighbor’s right to play music a sufficient harm to you that the police should intervene?
These are political questions that routinely are decided in legislatures and city councils. Majorities define the deciding point precisely because perfect agreement is not possible.
The “robust moral judgment” that should stay in churches, homes and private schools pertains to activities between consenting adults, how much time and money to spend helping others and how to relate to the Almighty.
In my view, we will become more moral when we spend more time together, not the reverse, as moral behavior is learned through human interaction.
Cox and Corbin are right that society fractures as devices become our companions.
Apps exist in impersonal worlds where you can blow someone up or be blown up yourself, then just restart the game. We all need to live in worlds of reality where we get our dopamine buzz from making a friend smile or doing something that earns a “thank you.”
Morality is essential to politics, but our politics will frazzle if we as citizens are not interacting. Only as we get to know each other can we learn to accommodate, and insist in the bargain that our politicians balance our desires with the needs of others.
We need to live in a world of benevolence and apologies, of tears and laughter. Because in the end, all we have that really matters is each other.
Comments