It has long been asserted that
no religion can stand up to rational inquiry. Spengler asserted as much
in his explanation for why Culture becomes Civilization. Will Durant
explained it by stating that religion was based upon an irrational Faith, which was always going to be in conflict with rational thought.
But it is from religion that
we derive our moral code. And, when our Faith dies, in the face of a
confrontation with rationality, we lose the foundations of our moral
code, and this leads, more or less inevitably, to the decline and fall
of Civilization. So, if we wish to restore an indisputable moral code
to our Civilization we must ask ourselves: "Is there a moral code which
is not based strictly upon faith?"
The answer is, of course,
"Yes." In fact, there are several, most based upon some idealistic view
of mankind and derived in a late stage of some Civilization. Most of
these moral codes are seen as cold and sterile, and these impress us as
more or less "arbitrary." Human beings, at least at present, are
unwilling to accept an arbitrary moral code. No such code will ever
appear "right" to enough people for it to be widely accepted.
I will not waste a lot of time
discussing alternatives which have been tried and failed. After due
consideration, research, and reflection, I am left with the clear
impression that the only moral code which can be "sold" to a mass of
Late Civilization people is a moral code based upon the so-called "Golden Rule."
The Golden Rule begins with an
obvious advantage for those of us who are the descendants of Western
Civilization because it was enthusiastically endorsed by Jesus Christ,
who said: "Therefore whatever you want others to do for you, do so for
them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."26 Confucius also said it: "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."27
That grand master of Philosophy, Aristotle, chimed in with: "We should
behave to our friends as we would wish our friends to behave to us."28 I do not doubt that other major figures said similar things as well.
Another way of expressing more
or less the same thought comes to us first in the Old Testament in the
form: "you shall love your neighbor as yourself."29
That quotation, from Leviticus 19, Verse 18, is part of the Pentateuch,
containing the most holy books of the Jews. That commandment to the
Jews was also strongly endorsed by Jesus Christ.30
One great advantage of the
Golden Rule is that it can be derived as a product of pure intellect
beginning from the proposition that a prevailing moral rule of "The Law
of the Jungle" is incorrect, and must be replaced by something else.
Actually, I think that most people will intuitively grasp that "The Law
of the Jungle" is incompatible with, or even the opposite of, anything
which we would call "civilized behavior." So, a civilized society
obviously needs a moral rule which is different from "The Law of the
Jungle."
We all know that it is part of human nature to react with anger if we are confronted by anger. In fact, this is a survival quality
of mankind. We react that way because it is good for our ability to
survive if the angered other(s) are about to attempt to do us harm. So
too, if we do not know in advance of a reason to behave otherwise, we
should expect that if we approach another with graciousness and
brotherly love, we should expect a similar reaction in return.
Virtually all of our rules of civilized behavior are based upon the
unspoken agreement that we will treat each other in a civil manner
unless given a clear reason to do otherwise. That unspoken agreement
also leads to moral disgust directed at the first one to break
with civility. This makes it important for us to make note of "who
started it." From this rule, we naturally view the person "who started
it" as guilty of creating any civil disturbance which occurs in our
society.
But lying deep down, and
creating the foundations of what we call "civility," is the Golden Rule
in its purest form. Deep in our hearts, we all feel that if just
everyone would follow that fundamental commandment, we could have
"peace on Earth and goodwill towards men" every day of the year, as
opposed to just at Christmas time.
Is there another moral code
worth considering? My personal favorite is the concept of Utility:
"when there is a moral or ethical choice to be made, the course of
conduct which is of the highest morality is the course of conduct which
provides the greatest happiness to the greatest number, or avoids the
greatest harm to the greatest number." This rule allows personal
selfishness (and happiness) if others are not harmed.
It must also be noted that our
contemporary sense of morality usually values minor children higher
than it does adults; thus it is considered "proper" for an adult to die
in the act of rescuing a small child. But this moral code of ours is
highly uneven. As soon as that young person is of proper military age,
it is now morally "proper" to send them off to die for their country.
But military action is, in essence, a return to "The Law of the
Jungle," so it is probably incorrect to consider such things in the
development of a moral code for civilians.
I do think, though, that the
key concept of Utility, "the greatest happiness to the greatest
number," is similar enough to the commandment to "love your neighbor as
yourself," that you could easily declare them to be merely different
aspects of the same fundamental moral rule. If I am going to love my
"neighbor," which we must now take to mean all other humans in our
society, then I should want to provide "the greatest happiness to the
greatest number" of these "neighbors" of mine.
Now, Ayn Rand criticized the
concept of Utility because she believed it represented a fundamental
altruism, and she was adamantly opposed to altruism as a basis for
anything in a modern society.31
Instead, she asserted that a fundamental selfishness was the only
proper basis for running any practical modern society. It is
selfishness which is at the root of Capitalism, and it is Capitalism
(she asserted) which was responsible for virtually all of the great
accomplishments of Western Civilization.
But we know from our own history that too much selfishness, embodied in an uncontrolled and unfettered Capitalism, will be bad for mankind. We also know that a forced altruism, certainly as it was implemented in Communist Russia, will also be bad
for mankind. Uncontrolled Capitalism gradually impoverishes the masses
and leads, at some point or another, to revolution, which is the
ultimate disorder. But certainly, Russian Communism, which was born in
a revolution against an autocratic monarch, led just as inexorably to
its own internal revolution the moment when the West decided to make peace with Russia.32
The clear lesson from the Twentieth Century is that both uncontrolled
selfishness (i. e., pure Capitalism) and uncontrolled and forced
altruism (in whatever form, including Communism) are bad for mankind. Clearly, we need a third option, and I believe that third option lies in the Golden Rule and/or Utility.
In answer to Ayn Rand, I would
assert that the concept of Utility is perfectly compatible with
personal selfishness, so long as it is a limited
selfishness. I can be selfish to create my own personal happiness, so
long as I do not create unhappiness in others, and if I can add to the
happiness of others in the process, so much the better. My conduct
becomes immoral when, in an attempt to selfishly add to my own personal
happiness, my conduct injures others, or reduces their own happiness to
any substantial degree. Under this rule, driving drunk, and having an
accident, is an immoral course of conduct!
We are back, once again, to
the concept of "the rising tide lifts all boats." My own personal
"pursuit of happiness" is in no way a zero-sum game! I am certain that
we all can envision circumstances when, far from my achieving happiness
only by creating an equivalent amount of unhappiness in others, a group
of two or more people engages in a course of conduct which makes all of
them much happier.33
But we must limit our "pursuit of happiness" so that it does not injure
others. That is the key: a concept that there must be some limit.
So, this is by no means the
"party hearty" rule of conduct. If I spend myself into the poorhouse
with partying, I am not going to be very happy at the end, and those
who have to take charge of me in those circumstances are not going to
be very happy, either. Thus, my conduct must also be limited by a rule
of responsibility.
Is this altruism, as Ayn Rand complained? If it is, then it is a voluntary
altruism in the pursuit of my own personal happiness. It is clearly not
a forced altruism, because I am free to pursue my own personal selfish
needs, if that is what I wish to do to make myself happy.
In reality, Utility is neither
selfishness nor altruism, but something in-between. It is not pure
altruism, because it allows individuals to pursue their own personal
happiness, within limits. It is also not pure selfishness, because the
needs of the many are still allowed to impose themselves upon the few.
The many must be privileged to not give up their own happiness in
return for the happiness of the few. The few must respect that
privilege. The few must also respect the needs of the many for a
certain amount of what is, in fact, pure and forced altruism, such as
obeying a military draft. The few must recognize that, if the many need
a draft to provide for the common defense, the few must respond
willingly, or else it is likely that nobody will have happiness. But if
you think about it long enough, you will probably conclude that every
aspect of Utility is embodied in the Golden Rule!
There is nothing in the Golden
Rule which prevents me from seeking my own personal and selfish portion
of happiness. But, just as I would not wish my "neighbor" to inflict
unhappiness upon me, so too I should not inflict unhappiness upon my
neighbor. And, just as I would wish my neighbor to act to prevent the
inflicting of unhappiness upon me, so too should I act to prevent the
inflicting of unhappiness upon my neighbor. The "happiness" of Utility
and the neighborly "love" of the Golden Rule are really just different
ways of conveying the same concept, sort of like translating between
different languages.
Great thinkers have turned
these concepts over and over again throughout all of the history of
mankind, and it keeps coming back to themes and variations on the
Golden Rule. Doesn't that say something to you?
Whether you call it the Golden
Rule ("do as you would be done by" or "love your neighbor as
yourself"), or whether you call it Utility (the most happiness for the
greatest number), it is still essentially the same moral code which has
been handed down from the forefathers of most civilized men. It is the
only moral code which has truly stood the test of time. Thus, if we
need a moral anchor upon which to moor our new civilization, we could
do no better than to simply choose the Golden Rule as our moral anchor,
or to put it another way, our moral compass.
Just because our intellect may
have examined Christianity and found it wanting, that is no reason to
discard every word of wisdom which Christianity teaches. As I have
tried to show throughout this Section, some of that wisdom is common to
many other non-Christian civilizations, such as the ancient Chinese,
the Classical Greeks, and even the Jews. While it is true that our
Western Civilization has more or less conquered the modern remnants of
all of these older civilizations, that does not mean we should ignore
the greatest wisdom which each has to offer.
The end result, then, is that
it all appears to boil down to a simple dichotomy: "The Law of the
Jungle" or "The Golden Rule." If you wish a ruler with which to measure
the conduct of any member of the human race, including yourself, just
measure the conduct in question against the ruler formed by placing
these two rules of morality upon the opposite ends of a piece of wood.
The closer that the conduct in question lies towards "The Law of the
Jungle," the greater is the immorality which that course of conduct
represents. The closer that the conduct in question lies towards "The
Golden Rule," the higher is the morality of that course of conduct.
As a parallel point, it ought
to be obvious that "The Law of the Jungle" leads towards barbarism,
while "The Golden Rule" leads towards civilized behavior. Each of us
desires the multitude of benefits which are available to us as
civilized human beings. With those benefits comes the obvious
obligation to follow the moral code of "The Golden Rule." If any of us
choose otherwise, we call those people "criminals," and devise some
appropriate punishment.
The concept of Utility is
primarily the product of Nineteenth Century rational thought. Yet we
see that, all things considered, it is really just a theme and
variation on the Golden Rule, which most of us think of as a
commandment from God.
It now becomes clear that we
need not lose our moral compass when rationalism destroys our Faith.
The same moral rule which the Jewish God handed down as a commandment
to his chosen people, and which Christ cited as one of two primary
rules for his followers to adhere to,34
is in reality more or less the same moral rule which purely rational
thought derived when they thought they were starting from scratch with
a clean slate!
It matters not, then, whether
you put your faith in God, or Jesus, or purely rational thought, the
penultimate moral code is the same: "The Golden Rule." The words are a
little different in different languages, and at different times, and in
different places; but the underlying concept is the same, no matter
where you find it. The only way to have a civilized society is for each
citizen to respect the rights of all other citizens. The basic rule for
accomplishing that goal will always be "The Golden Rule."
Thus, we may happily declare
that our "new" moral compass is the same as our old one, and we can get
on with trying to repair the damage which roughly two centuries of
navigating without a moral compass has done to our society.
26 See the "New American Standard Bible," Matthew, Chapter 7, Verse 12.
27 From Bartlett's "Familiar Quotations," quoting "The Confucian Analects," Book 15:23.
28 From Bartlett's "Familiar Quotations," quoting from Diogenes Laertius, "Lives of Eminent Philosophers," Book V, section 21.
29 While this quotation is not, strictly speaking, "do as you would be done by," it should seem most obvious that if you DO love your neighbor as yourself, you will gladly treat that neighbor as you would wish yourself to be treated, which IS "do as you would be done by."
30 See the "New American Standard Bible," Matthew, Chapter 19, Verse 19; Mark, Chapter 12, Verse 31; Luke, Chapter 10, Verse 27; and Romans, Chapter 13, Verse 9.
31 Ayn Rand, as a former citizen of the former Soviet Union, all too easily equated altruism with Communism, something which we truly know does not work.
32 This outcome was predicted by Will and Ariel Durant. Writing in 1968 in their book, "The Lessons of History," on page 66 they said: "Here too Communism was a war economy. Perhaps it survives through continual fear of war; given a generation of peace it would probably be eroded by the nature of man."
33 The penultimate example for most of mankind would be good sex, which should make both of the people involved in that course of conduct very happy.
34 See the "New American Standard Bible," Mark, Chapter 12, Verses 28-34, and Luke, Chapter 10, Verses 25-28.