Criminal Morality
by Joseph Rowlands

There's a widespread idea that there is one universally accepted view of morality. Occasionally, people will develop a slightly more nuanced view and suggest that each country or culture has its own morality. But even here, it is accepted that within that culture, there is a universal recognition of what is and isn't moral.

One of the downsides to this view is that it creates a particular kind of confusion. If someone disagrees with his neighbors about what actions are best to take, people would describe him as rejecting morality. And even when he tried to describe the basis of his choices, he might not think it appropriate to call his decision-making process a moral system. He might continue to think that morality only describes what "society" expects.

An excellent example of this is the case of certain criminals. They believe that they are making more rational choices than others. They think that stealing is an easy and effective way of getting what you want. Additionally, they think that other people are making stupid choices. People who choose to be "moral" in the way that society accepts are fools who are needlessly making sacrifices for no good reason.

There's some validity to this view. The way many people think about morality, it requires sacrifice and hardship for the sake of being "good". The moral status is the only reward. So some people will naturally look at this and ask themselves why they should be moral. Should they be moral so they can feel good about being moral? It makes no sense.

So a criminal might observe that morality is a detriment to a person's life, and seems to be promoted for the most arbitrary reasons. They would think that people are foolish for accepting it and practicing it, and they would think they have figured out a trick to getting more out of life. The people who are all concerned about morality are suckers, and the criminals are smarter, at least where it counts.

Even here, though, they would not describe their own actions as moral. They would not say that stealing is morally appropriate. They might avoid saying that you "should" steal, because it would have similar connotations. They can easily recognize what society expects of them or what they are supposed to do. So they may say that they "should" be law abiding citizens, and that it is moral to do so, and that is what good people do.

But they'd also reject it. They might say that people who follow the rules are chumps. They might call them stupid, or say they are fools. They would treat morality like an archaic religion or superstition. Sure, it's widely believe by others that you should act according to society's rules, but that's just tradition. People think that way, but they're wrong.

Do criminals think they're evil? In one sense yes, and in another sense no. They might recognize that their value system contradicts the rest of what society believes, and so they would be considered bad by that standard. And they might even accept that the proper use of the term "moral", and all other moral language, should come from that society-wide standard. So they might say that they are evil by that standard, or that they are just bad or criminal. But at the same time, they would consider their own actions to be the smarter or wiser. They would see conformity to the social norms as being the mistake.

So if you ignore the language, they would consider their own actions to be the best or the most appropriate. They would reject the moral standards held by the rest of society, and see those as pointless and absurd. So in this sense, they would view themselves as acting morally, even if they don't think the word applies. To them, morality is equated with an arbitrary set of rules that require you to sacrifice and toil for.

Morality ends up having a wider meaning than just the process of decision-making. People have certain expectations about what it is and how it works. The criminal wouldn't think of his own choices as moral, because he thinks of morality as a bunch of artificial constraints that people put on themselves. He would think of himself as practical, not moral.

So those who reject the terms of a particular morality will often accept the premise that only that one moral view can properly be described as moral. They would see their own actions as immoral or amoral, pragmatic or practical. They would recognize how their actions relate to that widely held moral belief system, and would see that their actions are immoral based on that moral standard. He might even admit that his own actions are "immoral", but only as a way of noting that other people wouldn't approve.

Contrast this to someone who accepts a moral system and then acts in a way that is inconsistent with that moral view. If you did that, you would think of it as a moral failing. You might feel guilt. You would seek to correct your character so you don't do it again. An immoral action is a kind of failure to live up to your own standards.

But the criminal doesn't view his actions as a failure. While it may be inconsistent with the system he thinks is called morality, he doesn't accept it as valid. So he wouldn't feel guilty for acting on his own values and beliefs. He might feel that he has to hide them, purely for practical purposes, but he is more likely to feel a sense of pride since he has seen past the illusion or superstition of morality and found a way to act that leads to better results. It has none of the characteristics of an immoral action committed by someone who accepts the moral system.

We can see that both the criminal and the typical moral society member may agree on what is 'moral', but that agreement is an illusion. It's an agreement that treats the word as if it were a proper noun, identifying a specific set of beliefs. The typical moral member will agree with the moral standard, and the criminal will think its a foolish waste of time. And that means they aren't agreeing on the substance of morality. They aren't agreeing about the principles or values that they should use to guide their choices in life. They are only agreeing that the term 'morality' will be set aside to refer to that one specific set of beliefs.

The problem with treating morality as a proper noun is that it invalidates the wider concept along the way. There's no simple way to describe that they each have a different set of values and standards that guide their actions. By claiming that the criminals system of decision-making is not a kind of moral system, it implies that there is one established and universal moral system. That obscures the truth, and confuses the motivations of the criminal.

You have to search for a way of explaining the criminals actions. Maybe it is mental illness. Maybe he is irresponsible. Maybe he is evil. But these aren't right. He isn't out to defy morality for the sake of defying it. Nor is he just unable to live up to morality. He is actually rejecting some of the premises of his culture's morality, coming up with his own views of what actions are worthwhile, and acting by that new standard. But if you deny that he has an alternative standard, you'll always be misunderstanding his motives.

Of course, the criminal's standard of decision-making is flawed. Theft and violence is not practical. The problem is that the normal view of morality is an altruistic, self-sacrificial kind of morality. It claims you should avoid actions that benefit you, or to pick actions that sacrifice your interests for the sake of others. And in the same breath, it goes on to say that you shouldn't kill or steal or whatever.

The view that violence and theft are practical and in your interest is not invented by the criminal. It is promoted as a part of the traditional moral system. The criminal is taught that he should sacrifice his interests and not steal or kill for the sake of others. If he rejects the arbitrary nature of the morality, but doesn't question whether the other premises, he'll be left with the idea that morality is foolish and the practical thing to do is steal and use violence.

Discuss this Article (2 messages)