Chapter 4: Morals and Common Sense
Some people believe there are foundational morals and that common sense equals wisdom. Neither is true. Both are deeply grounded in the culture of the group. Neoconservatives and neoliberals believe society is more productive if wealthy people pay lower taxes. To them it is both common sense and morally correct as they take risks to earn their wealth. In reality, economic studies have proven their common sense to be folly. This reality is ignored. Their blindness to the risks that other people take to earn money explains their defective morality.
In the past in some societies where protein scarcity increases the risk of starvation, it was immoral to waste the protein in the body of a person who died. To not eat that person's flesh and let others starve to death was also foolishness.
Common sense means a belief shared by most people in a society -- that is what “common” means, just as the commons was and is the space shared by a community.
Morality is supposed to be about rules of behaviour that benefit the whole community, but it supports what benefits those with power in the community.
For too many years, it was moral for a man to discipline his wife and children as he saw fit, and it was immoral for a woman to complain about how her husband treated her. This morality sustains ideas, beliefs, and practices that many or most people in western society regard as immoral. For me, the pervasive attitude that women primarily exist to meet the needs of men explain why a man can deliberately murder a woman and get a minimal sentence while a man murdering another man, especially one with equal or superior status, usually faces a maximum sentence.
In terms of religions, the confusion between morality shaped by culture and application of core faith beliefs derived from the faith founders contributes to people supporting behaviours and laws contrary to the teachings of the founders. This is seen in the stands taken by Christians against LGBTQ people, same-sex marriage, and abortion.
When they demand laws against abortion instead of policies and laws that would reduce the need for abortions, they reveal the reason for opposing abortion is about controlling women, not protecting life. Laws and policies could give women control over their sexual lives and abundant support for caring for themselves and their yet-to-be-born children. They would have the information they need to avoid pregnancy and to resist attempts by men to exploit them. Making laws to control others violates the life and teachings of Jesus, but fit their inherited culture.
Among Muslims, beliefs about women covering themselves stem from cultural practices that existed before Islam became the faith of the community. This also applies to other sexist practices and attitudes in Islam. Before western interference in many Islamic countries including Iran, Afghanistan and Egypt created support for conservative Muslims, most Muslims in those countries had quite progressive attitudes about women.
Today we need to derive a moral code based on what benefits most people. This requires developing a consensus about which benefits to include and how to evaluate those benefits.
One potential starting point is clearly identifying our own values and what we regard as morals and reflecting on why those are our values and morals. Do they help us feel comfortable or believe we are behaving properly? Do they justify our attitudes towards certain others or issues? Do they validate our support of the mistreatment of others?
We need to evaluate how much a value or moral is for our own guidance for how we live our own lives and how appropriate a value or moral suits a group or society, and our justification for assigning that value or moral to that group or society.
We also need to examine how that value or moral fits our faith beliefs. For example, as a follower of Jesus who persistently showed compassion for the materially poor as well as the spiritually poor, I believe showing real love for the well-being of the marginalized, and putting love ahead of material gain, are values core to my faith.
I believe acting in a mean way, such as reducing public support for the poor and sick just to reduce costs to the middle class and wealthy is immoral, but there are many strongly religious people willing to do that. Is it my place to label their behaviour as immoral?
Quite often we face choices which are both negative and positive. A struggle for the developers of self-driving vehicles is creating and refining software capable of making those difficult choices. There are many such choices we face as individuals and as a society. Rather than peruse more examples, I leave you with the questions and invite you to explore potential answers to them in discussions with others. Who I am is shaped by my relationships with others. Who we are is shaped by our relationships with each other.
Some people believe there are foundational morals and that common sense equals wisdom. Neither is true. Both are deeply grounded in the culture of the group. Neoconservatives and neoliberals believe society is more productive if wealthy people pay lower taxes. To them it is both common sense and morally correct as they take risks to earn their wealth. In reality, economic studies have proven their common sense to be folly. This reality is ignored. Their blindness to the risks that other people take to earn money explains their defective morality.
In the past in some societies where protein scarcity increases the risk of starvation, it was immoral to waste the protein in the body of a person who died. To not eat that person's flesh and let others starve to death was also foolishness.
Common sense means a belief shared by most people in a society -- that is what “common” means, just as the commons was and is the space shared by a community.
Morality is supposed to be about rules of behaviour that benefit the whole community, but it supports what benefits those with power in the community.
For too many years, it was moral for a man to discipline his wife and children as he saw fit, and it was immoral for a woman to complain about how her husband treated her. This morality sustains ideas, beliefs, and practices that many or most people in western society regard as immoral. For me, the pervasive attitude that women primarily exist to meet the needs of men explain why a man can deliberately murder a woman and get a minimal sentence while a man murdering another man, especially one with equal or superior status, usually faces a maximum sentence.
In terms of religions, the confusion between morality shaped by culture and application of core faith beliefs derived from the faith founders contributes to people supporting behaviours and laws contrary to the teachings of the founders. This is seen in the stands taken by Christians against LGBTQ people, same-sex marriage, and abortion.
When they demand laws against abortion instead of policies and laws that would reduce the need for abortions, they reveal the reason for opposing abortion is about controlling women, not protecting life. Laws and policies could give women control over their sexual lives and abundant support for caring for themselves and their yet-to-be-born children. They would have the information they need to avoid pregnancy and to resist attempts by men to exploit them. Making laws to control others violates the life and teachings of Jesus, but fit their inherited culture.
Among Muslims, beliefs about women covering themselves stem from cultural practices that existed before Islam became the faith of the community. This also applies to other sexist practices and attitudes in Islam. Before western interference in many Islamic countries including Iran, Afghanistan and Egypt created support for conservative Muslims, most Muslims in those countries had quite progressive attitudes about women.
Today we need to derive a moral code based on what benefits most people. This requires developing a consensus about which benefits to include and how to evaluate those benefits.
One potential starting point is clearly identifying our own values and what we regard as morals and reflecting on why those are our values and morals. Do they help us feel comfortable or believe we are behaving properly? Do they justify our attitudes towards certain others or issues? Do they validate our support of the mistreatment of others?
We need to evaluate how much a value or moral is for our own guidance for how we live our own lives and how appropriate a value or moral suits a group or society, and our justification for assigning that value or moral to that group or society.
We also need to examine how that value or moral fits our faith beliefs. For example, as a follower of Jesus who persistently showed compassion for the materially poor as well as the spiritually poor, I believe showing real love for the well-being of the marginalized, and putting love ahead of material gain, are values core to my faith.
I believe acting in a mean way, such as reducing public support for the poor and sick just to reduce costs to the middle class and wealthy is immoral, but there are many strongly religious people willing to do that. Is it my place to label their behaviour as immoral?
Quite often we face choices which are both negative and positive. A struggle for the developers of self-driving vehicles is creating and refining software capable of making those difficult choices. There are many such choices we face as individuals and as a society. Rather than peruse more examples, I leave you with the questions and invite you to explore potential answers to them in discussions with others. Who I am is shaped by my relationships with others. Who we are is shaped by our relationships with each other.
Last edited:
