Short version:
Introduction:
Lately I awaken in the morning longing to surface, to rise up from the deeps of terrible news and break the surface, finally able to breath fresh air freely, without the constant pressure on my mind and soul caused by the terrible wars, famines, and weather catastrophes. I am in a great rage about these – the self-serving tyrants and their sycophants, the greedy energy companies, some of which knew about climate warning in the seventies! I want to breathe freely air undefiled by political and public relations euphemisms. I want to stand upon ground that holds good life values which are commonly understood and agreed.
Rather than the pap which passes for public policies and government and business announcements, I want to feel deep in my gut that non-judgemental morality and ethics are held and promoted by our political, financial, education, government, religious, and social leaders. These ought to be the First Principles next which we stand on the landscape of values in life. Doing so can get us all (well, most of us) what we want.
We desire freedom from want, freedom from fear, and the ability to flourish. (Some want much, much more, even to the exclusion of others). The specifics of those qualities, e.g., decent housing, reliable and useful income, good quality of living, food, healthcare, safe climate, justice, accommodation for special needs, and good education, are highly personal matters. But they are sufficiently related to compose freedom from want, freedom from fear, and the ability to flourish.1
Mere good public service and policy, a popular form of government, and a fair tax system will not by themselves provide these things. There must be good intention – a strong desire and will to do these things. Such intention is born of non-judgemental morality and ethics.
By morality, I mean the assumption that you have the wisdom and right to evaluate whether you or someone else has done bad things to others or to themselves. Morality says they are less worthy than those who do (only? more?) good things.
Non-judgemental morality foregoes this assumed wisdom. It proclaims itself, but leaves everyone free to evaluate its relevance and helpfulness. When the lack of morality leads to damaging people and our environment, or to impairing freedom from want and freedom from fear, we move from morality to law and justice, with all the familiar institutional evaluations we have now.
Non-judgemental morality and ethics ought to be held and promoted by our political, financial, education, government, and social leaders. I plan to talk about this in any public venue or group I can find, and write to individuals, politicians and other leaders, and newspapers about this view. I hope you will, also. These are the qualities we need in our leadership NOW.
Deeper read:
The problem:
It is easy to conclude these days that there is no public or social leadership in any sphere of action in the world, that stands for and supports non-judgemental morality, and ethics. Deliberate and “necessary” cruelty, violence, and oppression seem to be the order of the day in many places, along with efforts to deprive many people of their economic and health well-being, deceive, and manipulate them.
“Ensuring a nation’s survival sometimes leaves tragically little room for private morality. Discovering the inapplicability of Judeo-Christian morality in certain circumstances involving affairs of state can be searing. The rare individuals who have recognized the necessity of violating-such morality, acted accordingly, and taken responsibility for their actions are among the most necessary leaders for their countries….” (The Return of Marco Polo’s World, Robert D. Kaplan)
Officials charged with the safety of the state must examine the whole context surrounding that responsibility.2 It all too often seems that projection of state military power and covert operations into regions whose significance to the homeland are tangential and/or slight, is undertaken “for the safety of the state.” 3 Non-judgmental morality and good character should question whether those projections are truly necessary for the safety of the state, or whether they primarily benefit commercial and political interests of a few at home (see, for example https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/08/magazine/war-afghanistan-iraq-soldiers.html). The possibility of harm to others than the state must also be considered. One should question whether the projections are launched simply because they can be – there is sufficient power technology to enable that, and vast numbers of people who are willing to be trained to kill (The Modern Mercenary: Private Armies and What They Mean for World Order, Sean McFate). Just as some politicians participate in matters of state because they enjoy the blood sport of politics rather than because they want to accomplish high civic ideals, some operatives involved in those projections of power do so less because of state necessity, than because they enjoy and crave the risk (having been an intelligence officer during the Vietnam War and the Cold War, I have met some of these). I’ve read the recent books by intelligence officials Robert Gates, George Tenet, Michael Hayden, James Clapper, Brent Scowcroft/George W. Bush, and Leon Panetta, and I’m sure that they would disagree. But things often look very different from the top of the policy mountain than from almost any other location on it: now with more than sixteen years of formal, if Congressionally undeclared war, there may be less government and public sense of responsibility toward the military (including mercenaries) and agents (government and mercenary) because all these people are volunteers – danger to life and limb, although regrettable, is not tragic because it’s not necessary and not involuntary. War is not necessarily regarded as a regrettable matter. So, the tools of “state necessity” are more easily used. I’m sure the reader can name current situations which are described. There are many – far too many.
This is why non-judgemental morality (see Perhaps morality sometimes leads us astray… – Upon reconsidering…), along with good judgement and an intuitive feeling for other human beings (empathy), which together define character, are important to preserve the “safety of the state.” We who served in the Vietnam War all know that we were sent because of false reasons; the real reasons were kept secret. This seems to continue. There is no reason to trust the good sense (see Eugene Lang’s The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar and contrast it with Bill Graham’s The Call of the World, but a more positive impression may be made by Michael McFaul’s From Cold War to Hot Peace ), integrity, or sincerity of those who want to project power for the “safety of the state” – there are too many instances of desire to do this sort of thing without any attention to morality, especially recently.
Character in a politician involves having civic ideals which invest as much concern for their governed and for other political bodies (such as another province or country), as for their own political careers.
It involves a willingness and ability to consider the ethics of potential policies and acts, the effects on everyone and everything touched by them, and to allow feelings about those consequences to enter the unconscious and roll around a while in the gut, before assenting to, or promoting a policy. It involves holding as little confidential and secret as possible, because being secretive toward others makes it impossible to be honest with yourself. This character is something we should seek in our politicians and in their advisers and political operatives around them.
Non-judgemental morality and ethics must be held and promoted by our political, financial, education, government, and social leaders. I realize that, particularly in recent years in Canada, politicians and parties have been criticized for “virtue signaling,” rather than action. This is not what I suggest. What I suggest is action first, carried out with such clear consistency that someone must feel compelled to ask about the values, theories, and plans underlying our actions. The answer should be brief, but supply enough explicit explanation to enable others to watch for these qualities in our other actions, and bring to bear their own reactions. Actions first; the talk – if invited. Then, more action.
Deeper investigation:
I shall not argue (too easily done ad nauseum) definitions of non-judgmental moral values: I mean compassion, mercy, generosity, being equally concerned for others (and the environment) as for ourselves, respecting others’ different opinions (as opposed to hating them, threatening them, being violent against them). This includes reading their words and listening to them, which may lead to empathy.
There are writers who view being good, or not, as natural:
Determined, a Science of Life without Free Will, by Robert M. Sapolski, looks upon our “decisions” as determined by our genes and by the genes and decisions by people around us and before us, as well as by our environment (e.g., we choose to wear warm clothing and dwell indoors in cold weather). He recounts a conversation with North American indigenous person about the myth of Turtle Island, land placed upon the back of a willing turtle: where does the turtle stand, he asks? The answer: upon another turtle, which in turn stands upon another turtle and so on.
We react and respond, but at no time have “free will.” In this scheme, we act with or without a moral compass or ethics code, depending entirely upon our turtles.
Born to be Good, the Science of a Meaningful Life, by Dacher Keltner, posits that people are inspired to our actions, feelings, and decisions by our biologies and interactions. But we naturally seek the good. He attempts to merge some qualities of Buddhism with science, and I don’t think it works, nor does his scientific explanation.
The Optimism Bias, a Tour of the Irrationally Positive Brain Tali Sharot, posits that people are naturally optimistic, i.e., they are likelier to forecast a happy future for themselves even to an unrealistic level. It is how we keep ourselves motivated. It is not obvious where morality or ethics fit into this scheme, although her thesis would suggest that if we are optimistic about our ability to be moral or ethical, we will be more easily motivated that way than otherwise.
The Social Genome: the New Science of Nature and Nurture, by Dalton Conley delves deeply into how information about our genes and their origins can enable science to predict much about our physical being. Our physical being (e.g., a pleasing appearance) can influence how others treat us, which can affect our opinion of ourself. But it can also affect how we express our genes for specific behaviour, how we react to depressive and threatening circumstances and how that influences the genes we pass on to progeny (see also Gabor Matė’s The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness, & Healing in a Toxic Culture). These can generate optimism about what we can do despite obvious obstacles. He refers to genetics and social environment as two sides of a Moebius strip.
Rather than a set plan for a building of a given height, depth, and width, the DNA instructs the organism to react to the environment. …DNA says here’s a machine learning approach that I’ve embedded into your hardware; now go out and get some training data.
The various books on thinking I’ve cited over the many posts in this blog, seem to perceive everything as a reaction to internal and external stimuli. There is never discussion of agency, i.e., the point at which the individual decides, or intends, or plans, or wills, or initiates. In regard to these, I feel more akin to the 19th century physiological psychologists (The Metaphysical Club: a Story of Ideas in America, by Louis Menand). Recent authorities reject the notion of the ghost in the machine, or the homunculus, or the soul. I just don’t think they have satisfactorily explained personhood. This blog so far demonstrates my patient reading of much material, and wards off any suggestion that ideas which contradict my own just haven’t been given due consideration. They have been, and I find them wanting. I feel confident now, from my own experience and many others’ (In forty years of pastoral care I have listened to many peoples’ understanding of themselves and their lives), in asserting that you and I really do have our own selves which are not altogether the product of all the electrochemical and biological processes described in these posts. There is a you and an I, although we certainly are influenced by things, events, and other living creatures inside our bodies (gut biomes and cells) and outside them. Each of us really does have the ability and the responsibility to have informed consent and dissent. There may indeed be a huge number of us who do not think for themselves, but not everyone.
As well, we are helped by those who have gone before, who have provided disciplines to which we can submit our thoughts and emotions for shaping and improving: culture, family environments, religion, non-judgmental morality, ethics, law, institutions, stories, and convention. We need not be enslaved by any of these, nor by our bodies, minds, or brains. And we who are of religious inspiration will believe that there is also divine inspiration and intervention, whether or not predictable or reliable.
I want to particularly examine ethics:
Ethics is different from morality, although both stem from personal values.
Ethics ss the discipline of holding explicit values which you publicly state. You will exercise these value consistently in your personal life, and in your public/social life, so that (In a business context, for example), your customers, associates, community, suppliers, employees, investors, and colleagues will know what to expect of you.
My own values are found in this: I want to act with as much concern for others as for myself, neither more nor less. I call this the Core Ethic. There are other value systems, of course, and they also may compose “ethics.” Ethics is altogether values-specific, and is not a universal thing.
It is a very difficult ethic. Many people think it is just “do unto others…”, but it’s not. The Golden Rule, as it is known, and its parallel in other traditions, is largely a one-on-one practice. This Core Ethic demands a broader view of the surrounding world. It is a religious command: “…you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and soul, and mind, and your neighbour as yourself.” In the foundational texts, “love” is an action word, not just a feeling. I substituted “act with concern for” because of that.
This ethic requires that one be as concerned for oneself as for others: it is not a self-sacrificial ethic. Take care of yourself and your family as well as others and the environment. I find that this ethic requires a great deal of careful thought to keep that equilibrium. This is not Ben Franklin’s “charity begins at home.”
This ethic requires careful thought almost all the time, in contrast with codes of conduct which are more reference-friendly. Because people don’t usually know what they believe or think until they speak about it, talking with others is an important part of careful thought. Explicitness is a key quality of this ethic.
Conclusion:
I feel compelled to state loudly now that non-judgemental morality and ethics ought to be held and promoted by our political, financial, education, government, and social leaders. I plan to talk about this in any public venue or group I can find, and write to individuals, politicians and other leaders, and newspapers about this view.
These are the qualities we need in our leadership NOW.
2 Character in politicians – Upon reconsidering…
3 See Jack Goldsmith’s The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration, which contains a good deal of history prior to Bush Sr., and Power and Constraint: the Accountable Presidency after 9/11; see also Charlie Savage’s Power Wars: Inside O’Bama’s Post-9/11 Presidency.
3 See some other Kagan writings in The Atlantic: “In Defense of Empire,” April 2014; “In Defense of Henry Kissenger,” May 2013; “Outsourcing Conflict,” Sept. 2007; “Supremacy by Stealth,” July/Aug. 2003
Upon reconsidering... 