Rare Position
by Joseph Rowlands

There is one idea in topic of morality that I think is essential for people to recognize and understand. It is the idea that there are many different moral systems in the world. The prevalent belief is that there is some universally recognized thing called morality that describes a very specific set of policies or values. If you follow that particular system, you can consider yourself moral. If you choose some other course of action, than you are immoral.

This view is a myth. People have wildly different ideas of what is moral and what isn't. There is significant variance across cultures, but also within them. You only need to look at the different political positions espoused by people to see how radically different people's views of morality are.

But the essential idea I'm talking about goes further than just pointing out the differences that people have in what they believe to be moral. When that myth is discarded, it is possible to see that any policy or choice in values is a kind of morality. The word should not be used to suggest one code of values is better than another. Not only is it difficult to compare moral systems without just affirming the one you believe in over the others, but it also suggests that the questions are answered and settled. It classifies anyone with a different set of moral beliefs as rejecting morality, instead of just picking another.

The idea is that morality is everywhere. There are many different principles people use to guide their choices, and many different values that people uphold and pursue. Sometimes these are drastically different from conventional morality, such as when a criminal believes he is being smart by stealing from others. Sometimes it seems unrelated to morality, like when people have a policy of never keeping cash in their wallet because they might spend it, or when others keep the thermostat set at a low temperature to conserve energy.

When you stop viewing morality in the very narrow sense that people usually think of it, suddenly morality appears everywhere. Every decision is made based on a moral standard. Every policy is a moral policy. People's ideals and dreams guide their choices and planning. Even when people are doing bad things from the conventional point of view, they are expressing a more deeply held set of moral values. Morality is everywhere.

Being able to see this is not easy. Most people accept that there is one set of systems that can properly be called morality, and everything else is just wrong. Some might reject the particular values or policies of the conventional morality, but they will tend to think of their own choices as anti-moral, instead of a different morality. They might disagree with the mainstream, but they won't necessarily recognize the universality of morality.

Objectivists are in a rare position here. The Objectivist philosophy recognizes that there are different moral systems. It identifies the conventional morality as a form of altruism, with potentially many variants, and offers a new morality based on rational self-interest and life as the ultimate value. Since it doesn't just dismiss morality as wrong-headed, Objectivists believe that there are in fact many different moral beliefs.

There is another factor that benefits Objectivists. According to Objectivism, every choice a person makes is a choice based on some moral standard. It may not be the standard that you claim to accept, or the one that you want to accept. It may not be one that your practice consistently. But choices require values, and values require evaluation. There must be some method of determining which option is better or worse in order to choose it.

Recognizing that all choices are moral choices can open your eyes to the huge world that is morality. You can see all of the different ways people make decisions. You can see when they adopt an intrinsic value, like the desire to save the environment. You can see when they adopt a moral policy, like that you should always keep your word, no matter what. You can see when moral ideals affect their choices, like when they fear confrontations or upsetting people's feelings.

This is a rare position. It requires seeing the world outside of the traditional moral perspective, but it also requires seeing other possible moral systems as superior or equal. If you just view yourself as outside of morality, and reserve a special status for the belief system that is more widely accepted, you can lose sight of the similarities between all of these radically different approaches. And finally, to see the full breadth of morality in our world, you have to recognize morality as a more fundamental approach to decision-making. If you continue to think that morality is just what you do in an emergency when a building is burning or a child is drowning, then you can't see how every choice we make is guided by many different moral criteria.

Given this unique perspective, I believe one of the most important points that Objectivist can share with the world is the prevalence of morality. As long as people think of morality as a single thing, requiring obedience or rejection, there is no hope that they will examine alternatives and make comparisons. The traditional view of morality presents a false-dichotomy that helps keep it alive. You are stuck either accepting it blindly and obeying, or you are rejecting morality entirely, willing to murder and rape, and are clearly evil. This isn't much of a choice, and many of those who do question that pointless and sacrifice of conventional morality may end up accepting that belief their own desires and whims should go unimpeded.

By challenging this dichotomy, and opening people's eyes to alternatives, people can make better choices in their lives and be open to really thinking about the possibilities. They can also be more systematic in their decision-making, as they learn to see the various reasons for why they act the way they do, and whether those reasons are justified or not.

All of this being said, I've found many Objectivists who don't see things this way. Instead of seeing a plethora of examples of different moral systems, they simply adopt their new morality and condemn all choices that are incompatible with it. They have accepted one true morality for another, and adopted the "us vs. them" approach that views conformity to the moral system as good and everything else as just bad. Instead of seeing why people are making the choices they are, and what moral guides they are using in that decision-making process, they simply reject the results. Their conclusions may be correct, but a lot of interesting and useful information is lost in the process.

Another common problem is that self-proclaimed Objectivists often adopt a moral system that still views moral choices as limited in scope and special in nature. For these people, life is not the goal. Moral perfection, and the status or pride that goes with it, is. And to make moral perfection achievable, they view morality in terms of obedience to certain rules, policies, or virtues. If you evade, you are immoral. If you suspend your judgment and rely on the judgment of others, you are immoral. If you are dishonest, you are immoral. Moral perfection, in this view, consists of obeying the rules and never committing a moral crime.

Why is this a problem, other than the fact that it replaces life as the standard for a fake status that comes from moral perfection? It's a problem because it views morality as limited to certain kinds of choices. Altruism does the same thing when it suggests emergencies or desperate need of others is the condition for moral action. In both cases, morality is seen as something that happens rarely.

In contrast to this view of limited scope, a proper morality recognizes the universal scope of morality. Every decision is guided by morality in many different ways. A moral standard may be used. Virtues may influence choices are allow you to see new choices. Moral policies may rule out certain options. Only this wide view of morality can open a person's eyes to the rich diversity and alternative approaches of morality in the real world.

Discuss this Article (1 message)