Do you know the difference between right and wrong? This is the question we ask our teenagers, ad nausea. This is the litmus test for deciding if the criminal is bad or mad. The question itself presupposes that we human beings have an innate sense of right and wrong. It further assumes that what is deemed to be right and wrong is incontrovertible, that they are universal constants which transcend culture and context.
Even though the most primitive of tribes, such as aboriginals or criminals, have a rudimentary morality, this only extends to its own members. Those outside the tribe are rarely afforded equal treatment under the code. Even the medieval knights with their strict code of chivalry only reserved this treatment for others from their own caste. These same knights who would not hesitate to sacrifice themselves for the honor of a damsel in distress, thought nothing of butchering the local peasantry. Selective morality is no morality! In this sense all tribe are essentially 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 norm is the central myth around which the tribe is formed. A group must differentiate between those on the inside and those on the outside. This distinction will always have some logical premise, at least superficially; but at its root, it is ultimately arbitrary. The set of standards we draw upon in making our judgments are framed by the tribes we belong to. Those whose actions, thoughts and appearance conform to our tribal standards are deemed acceptable, while those who happen to deviate from these norms in some way are considered aberrant. This then forms the basis of our prejudices.
Right and wrong do exist as transcendent ideals, but the moment we attempt to codify them, give them concrete definition, like sand, its essence slips through our fingers. All we are left with is an elegant lattice of empty regulations. When this structure is found to be lacking, we loaded with caveats and clarifications which do nothing but make them more obscure and cumbersome. Worse still, they mystify the law, allowing its high priests, the lawyers, to entrap us in its endless intricacies. That is why in the final analysis each of us must look within themselves, not the tribe, or the law givers, to decide what is right and what is wrong.
Even though the most primitive of tribes, such as aboriginals or criminals, have a rudimentary morality, this only extends to its own members. Those outside the tribe are rarely afforded equal treatment under the code. Even the medieval knights with their strict code of chivalry only reserved this treatment for others from their own caste. These same knights who would not hesitate to sacrifice themselves for the honor of a damsel in distress, thought nothing of butchering the local peasantry. Selective morality is no morality! In this sense all tribe are essentially 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 norm is the central myth around which the tribe is formed. A group must differentiate between those on the inside and those on the outside. This distinction will always have some logical premise, at least superficially; but at its root, it is ultimately arbitrary. The set of standards we draw upon in making our judgments are framed by the tribes we belong to. Those whose actions, thoughts and appearance conform to our tribal standards are deemed acceptable, while those who happen to deviate from these norms in some way are considered aberrant. This then forms the basis of our prejudices.
Right and wrong do exist as transcendent ideals, but the moment we attempt to codify them, give them concrete definition, like sand, its essence slips through our fingers. All we are left with is an elegant lattice of empty regulations. When this structure is found to be lacking, we loaded with caveats and clarifications which do nothing but make them more obscure and cumbersome. Worse still, they mystify the law, allowing its high priests, the lawyers, to entrap us in its endless intricacies. That is why in the final analysis each of us must look within themselves, not the tribe, or the law givers, to decide what is right and what is wrong.
Source...