2016-11-08. The Many Faces of Morality
The Many Faces of Morality – ~by James Leese
1 Introduction
At the beginning of this course I had laid out a rather ambitious task of researching the facts behind the issues facing us in our increasingly disorganized, disheveled, and increasingly dangerous civilization. After a week or so I realized I had to re-focus on the underlying issues. This led me to begin to understand the messes of our civilization are not recent, but a result of a long-standing structural makeup in the historical evolution of our civilization as it concerns ethical and moral issues.
In looking at The Urantia Book as to what constitutes an “ethical” or “moral” standard, whether for personal living or for the “making a living,” there was little help. That seems strange since the arrival of the Thought Adjuster is only upon the first moral decision of the person to be indwelt. What constitutes a moral decision?
Our Urantia Book study group grappled with this when the event described as Andon and Fonta making a decision, but it was not seen so much as being a moral one. “The decision of Andon and Fonta to flee from the Primates tribes implies a quality of mind far above the baser intelligence which characterized so many of their later descendants who stooped to mate with their retarded cousins of the simian tribes. But their vague feeling of being something more than mere animals was due to the possession of personality and was augmented by the indwelling presence of the Thought Adjusters.” (UB 63:1.4) It sounds as though the decision made was one to leave, unless there was another one that we didn’t read about. Because, it appears, the Thought Adjuster was already present, or perhaps came immediately, causing the pair to firm up their decision to leave.
- In the beginning
Some of the issues of was trying understand had to do the whys and what-fors of the current state of our seemingly corrupt political and commercial enterprises, why lying is the prevalent tool, why cheating and cutting corners commonplace, why not taking responsibilities for one’s actions is the rule of most of our societal–and personal–actions. It certainly is the basis for most TV and movie plots, as well as that of most novels. So life follows fiction, or the other way around. The result of all this is evident in the current election season as well as in the evidence found in the uncovering of huge abuses in our commercial dealings between our financial an corporate enterprises and the public, as well as evidence of massive abuse within our legislative and executive branches of government. For proof, pick up a newspaper any day.
Once I had found my topic, I realized I already had familiarity with one great mind on the subject, where that mind had already undertaken the examination of much of the underlying causes of all this cheating, lying, thievery, and other more serious criminal activities in which so much of our society and civilization seems to be steeped.
The mind of which I speak is, again, Jane Jacobs. In her career as a writer with incredible insight, she has examined the ways in which cities thrive, are found to be lively, and are made safe. She isn’t hesitant to point out the stupidities of architects, planners, engineers, economists, politicians, and others in the many stupid decisions that make most of our urban (and suburban) environments so pitiful. The results are not surprising: that the preponderance of our foolish mistakes, misjudgments, and major blunders are a result of not understanding the true nature–the truth–about the interrelationships between the desired goals and the steps they take to get there.
Then she moved on to tackle the economies of cities and nations in her several books. Toward the end of her life, she took in her last two books, what, to me is the core problem and with which I wanted to focus on. It turns out to be a problem in understanding the way our civilization is structured, historically, but we have forgotten about it. And it all spins on the issue of morality.
- What is morality?
First, what is morality? It is mentioned 29 times in The Urantia Book yet it is not really defined. Here is a sample: ”Religion is the ancestor of the advanced ethics and morals of progressive social evolution. But religion, as such, is not merely a moral movement, albeit the outward and social manifestations of religion are mightily influenced by the ethical and moral momentum of human society. Always is religion the inspiration of man’s evolving nature, but it is not the secret of that evolution.” (UB 101:0.2) Or: “The righteousness of any act must be measured by the motive; the highest forms of good are therefore unconscious. Jesus was never concerned with morals or ethics as such. He was wholly concerned with that inward and spiritual fellowship with God the Father…. He taught that the religion of the kingdom is a genuine personal experience which no man can contain within himself; that the consciousness of being a member of the family of believers leads inevitably to the practice of the precepts of the family conduct, the service of one’s brothers and sisters in the effort to enhance and enlarge the brotherhood.” (UB 170:3.9)
So what are these moral and ethical precepts that are alluded to? We can think of many: familial and brotherly love, family values–but not necessarily political versions–, kindness, forgiveness, empathy and compassion, plus we can enumerate the a list of the “jewels of the kingdom of heaven” and find these moral precepts are exactly the right ones: “…loving service, unselfish devotion, courageous loyalty, sincere fairness, enlightened honesty, undying hope, confiding trust, merciful ministry, unfailing goodness, forgiving tolerance, and enduring peace.” (UB 193:2.2) But we know these are the personal moral precepts that we are led to live each day. Yet, so much of the world seems to operate on different versions of moral systems.
Whether morality comes from within or is something that needs to be taught is an argument with an end. However, today it appears that it is not considered an important aspect of life. Yet, it is the “first moral decision” that makes possible for the thought adjuster to come into the mind of the individual, and the process of growing the soul begins. I have argued that this first moral decision is not one that needs to be taught, but can and does come naturally. It is a simple as, at that age just prior to the sixth birthday, making a decision for doing what feels right or not. Beyond that, I an not so sure of anything. How much of that first moral decision is based upon the close connection between a child’s parents or guardians and the child, that is, what the child is exposed to at his or her, earlier age, I do not know. But it seems to me that this very first decision does not need any pushes from the outside and can be the child’s very own–the child owns it: “… mind-reason intuitively knows its moral duty….” (UB 16:6.10)
There are others that contend morals must be taught by family, teachers, peers, and others that the child comes into contact with while growing up. And beyond that there are continuing influences in the child’s–now adult’s–recognition and utilization of morality for purposes of continuing to be a participant in the construction and evolution of the civilization he or she lives within. For example, “Some socio-biologists contend that the set of behaviors that constitute morality evolved largely because they provided possible survival and/or reproductive benefits (i.e. increased evolutionary success). Humans consequently evolved “pro-social” emotions, such as feelings of empathy or guilt, in response to these moral behaviors.” (Wikipedia) These sets of behavior, morals, are a far cry from that “first moral decision,” but by this time the adult has been exposed to all kinds of moral systems and rationales.
- The many views of morality in human life
Which brings us the what this is all about. For in the work-a-day world there are two very broad, but historically important, moral systems of behavior that exist and of which Jesus was very much aware of. But in all fairness, it is worth our time to understand what these are, primarily because they impact us each day in many ways. The surprising thing is that these two other, non-personal broad categories of moral systems or syndrome are fundamentally opposites or contradictions of each other. Jane Jacobs, in her book, System of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics, calls these two moral systems the Guardian Syndrome and the Commercial Syndrome.
[Before I go on, I do need to mention that Ms. Jacobs only gives us a list of the precepts that are uncommon to both syndromes; that is, she leaves out all of the ones that are common to both. For example, taking “to love” as a moral percept, one can easily see it can be, and is, a common precept within both syndromes. Within each moral syndrome there are many common precepts that are not contradictory to each other.]
Here are the precepts that area attached to each syndrome:
If one looks at the Guardian syndrome’s list of moral precepts–recall that a moral syndrome is neither good nor bad, but just a set of behaviors that define a particular group–the Guardian ones that originated with the need for territorial protections are those that were historically exemplified by knights and kings and queens, that is, feudal society, including early religious institutions. Today we see them most visibly in military units and police forces, public school systems, bureaucracies and legislatures, and intelligence agencies. While there exists within them some admirable qualities, there also exists some questionable ones considered from the viewpoint of what most of us consider good “Christian,” or spiritual morals or values. Notice the precepts of “take vengeance,” and “deceive for the sake of the task” and “be fatalistic.” (Is it any wonder law enforcement have a dim view of the characters that they deal with daily?; it colors their perspectives of life in general.) The primary lynchpin of the Guardian syndrome is loyalty.
Historically, the Commerce syndrome evolved out of the need for people to expand their options for making a living, one that they could not make as guardians as they were not allowed to be included. Trading and the production of goods for trading were the vehicles for these people. And with trading came the origin of villages, towns, and cities as these were built upon the trade routes across Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, wherever people could come together to barter and exchange goods and services, as well as information and opportunities for learning about the wider world. Jesus was most comfortable in this environment. As a youth, he spent much time with people as he learned about them and their ways of living.
Take a look at the Commerce precepts. They are all very positive. You may ask about “dissent of the sake of the task” as this does not seem positive, but in fact it is this very thing that allows innovation and growth. The basic lynchpins of the Commerce precepts are honesty since commercial enterprises do not work without trust, especially when dealing with strangers.
If you are observant, you will have noticed these two or three key lynchpin terms, as well as other precepts, are included among the “jewels” of Kingdom of Heaven mentioned above. although they appear in quite different contexts.
As Ms. Jacobs digs into these different ways of making a living on this–and probably every evolutionary planet’s evolving civilization–, she describes what happens to each of these syndromes when the moral precepts of one syndrome are taken on by the other. This is the source of corruption of both politics (including police and religions) and commerce. For instance, when the activities of a military unit undertakes commercial objectives, it is no longer trustworthy as a loyal unit to the government it stands to serve.
When a commercial enterprise takes on the moral precept of the Guardian syndrome, such as “exert prowess,” or “deceive for the sake of the task,” it no longer can be trusted to be honorable trading partner. Good examples of corrupted syndromes are the Mafia, whose loyalty is to the hierarchy of the organization, and mercenary soldiers, whose only loyalty is to the highest bidder. Ms Jacobs excels in uncovering all kinds of nefarious activities of many entities and organizations where this has occurred. And as for science, she places it squarely in the “commerce” syndrome as it must be earnest in its exploration of truth; there can be no “deceit for the sake of the task.” To do so puts an institution in the place that many “think tanks” find themselves, reporting most favorably on behalf of who is paying the invoice.
Twenty-five hundred years ago Plato warned us about mixing these two syndromes when he said, “Justice is to perform one’s own task and not to meddle with that of others.” (Plato’s Republic, in Book IV)
The result is that when we understand the underlying moral precepts at work within each syndrome, we start to understand the underlying truth behind what works and what doesn’t in our society. We can then be in this world, but not of it, to watch with understanding and amazement at how confused and disorganized our society truly is.
Many surprising things come from this work. For instance, Ms. Jacobs makes the claim that one of the key different things between mankind and animals is that only mankind trades. And trading, i.e., commerce, is a foundation of the evolution of civilization and trading of the scale beyond the small group of individuals could only happen with the invention of the city. The Urantia Book makes the same point.
- How does this relate to what we learn about life from The Urantia Book?
Back to Jesus in The Urantia Book. We watch, as the story of Jesus’ final days unfolds, the various syndromes at work in the life experiences of the Jewish people. And we see the corruption that underlies the actions of the Jewish leaders as they stray from being the religions leaders to their people and, instead, are seen as the corruption within the temple, taking advantage of the common people coming to the Passover; the corrupt money-exchangers and sacrificial-animal dealers. We watch how the Jewish leaders went out of their way to violate their own rules to make certain Jesus was to be put to death. And, in the overthrow of the money-exchangers, we also see the stoic Roman soldiers who refuse to take part in this charade once the animals and money-exchangers had been driven from the temple courtyards. At that time in Israel, the Roman occupiers exemplified the very nature of the Guardian syndrome. And they are portrayed as such in The Urantia Book.
While Jesus was not particularly interested in solving the problems of this world, he did propose many sound foundations for living in this world and this advise works as well for both Guardian and Commercial syndromes: “‘Build well the foundations for the growth of a noble character of spiritual endowments…. Let every man make sure that the intellectual and moral foundations of character are such as will adequately support the superstructure of the enlarging and ennobling spiritual nature’” (UB 156:5.2) This, to me, means doing well here, building the foundation of character that needs to be built in anticipation of what may lie ahead in worlds beyond this one.
Jesus, in many of this lectures and teachings to his Apostles and others as he passed by, talked of these things. Our text is full of them if we but look with eyes that see. It is up to us as we travel down our path to be the best we can be. In doing so, we are preparing ourselves for a richer adventure ahead, no matter where we are.
But remember, “Morality is not necessarily spiritual; it may be wholly and purely human, albeit real religion enhances all moral values, makes them more meaningful. Morality without religion fails to reveal ultimate goodness, and it also fails to provide for the survival of even its own moral values. Religion provides for the enhancement, glorification, and assured survival of everything morality recognizes and approves.” (UB 196:3.27)
- Conclusion
“Character is something more than mere mind and morals.” This statement goes on to talk about the importance of marriage as being paramount in building character: “Of all social relations calculated to develop character, the most effective and ideal is the affectionate and understanding friendship of man and woman….” (UB 160:2.6) But the call for the fellowship of mankind, the “brotherhood of man,” is much more than the relations between men and women in wedlock. Most of our lives are spent in constant contact with all kinds of different people that are, at first, strangers. The character that comes from understanding and accepting those that are different from us is very significant. And it is in this daily contact that real companionship, comradely, trust and loyalty come into play. It is through the growth of those qualities of morality that our live-a-day worlds thrive. But only if we are loyal to the our inherited and valued moral syndromes and their precepts.
And as this civilization moves forward, we can hope to find correction in the waywardness of our two syndromes. Remember that these two seemingly opposite operations of morality are both necessary and mutually supportive if operating within their original and legitimate venues. “Ethics and morals become truly human when they are dynamic and progressive, alive with universe reality.” (UB12:5.10)
“The evolutionary mind is able to discover law, morals, and ethics; but the bestowed spirit, the indwelling Adjuster, reveals to the evolving human mind the lawgiver, the Father-source of all that is true, beautiful, and good; and such an illuminated man has a religion and is spiritually equipped to begin the long and adventurous search for God.” (UB 196:3.26)
There is a reason we do not find a specific definition or morality in The Urantia Book. It, like “Jesus’ concept of perfection [is] not static…” but was broad enough to embrace all activities of mankind, from the personal to the global. But taken as a whole, each syndrome embraces in it totality and purity the “quality of integrated an whole–engaged in fact, meaning, and value, responsive to the actuals and potentials of beauty, and consecrated to goodness.” (Jeffrey Wattles: Living in Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. Eugene OR, Cascade Books, 2016, pp 198, 200) Within each syndrome lies the constancy of each one’s ideas of truth. beauty, and goodness that binds these precepts to its syndrome. To breach–to go outside–the precepts of a syndrome is to court with evil (ignorance), often with sin and perhaps iniquity.
These two syndromes, Guardian and Commerce, appear to be beyond our personal ideas and precepts of personal morality, but at their very heart, our own personal morals beat within them as core meanings and values, because the individual personality is the single heartbeat of each syndrome. And it is those personal moral precepts, the foundations of guardianship and commerce, that gave rise to how we go about our individual lives, making a living, serving our brothers and sisters.
I recommend anyone interested in the underlying structural problems in our institutions and commercial enterprises today, pick up her book. You will not regret it. Ms. Jacobs fleshes out in detail how these syndrome precepts relate to each other and examples of real life situations where they break down. Jane Jacobs, Systems of survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics, New York: Random house, 1992.
Available on amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Systems-Survival-Dialogue-Foundations-Commerce/dp/0679748164/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478548019&sr=1-1&keywords=Systems+of+Survival
Footnotes
- Below is a quick tour of how the different syndromes link their precepts together.
To see how these differing syndrome precepts are linked together to form the basis of each of the syndromes, let’s look at the Commercial syndrome first. Shun force is the moral precept that forbids commercial people to use force against each other. Imagine if they did use force, who fair and likely would their trading be? The precept to shun force leads to the next one, come to voluntary agreements. Be honest flows next since without honesty, trade would not be viable for long. Next is collaborate easily with strangers and aliens and links with honesty. Most all trading in the world is with strangers, after all. Then comes compete which supposes choice. Respect contracts “…gives substance to voluntary agreement.” “People doing commercial work need contracts, whether they’re written or not….” Use initiative and enterprise is next which leads to a series of precepts: be open to inventiveness, be efficient; promote comfort and convenience, and dissent for the sake of the task. “…[E]very single improvement in efficiency of production or distribution requires dissent form the way things were previously done. So does every new kind of material used in production. So does every innovative product….” Next comes another series: invest for productive purposes, be industrious; and be thrifty. Finally, be optimistic. Commercial people are not afraid to risk themselves or their assets to do what is necessary to do what they do; “They aren’t resigned to misfortune, they aren’t fatalistic.”
As to the Guardian syndrome, the first precept is shun trading. Historically guardian institutions kept away from the commercial activities. If they cross over, that is when corruption occurs. (Watch, for example, how certain politicians, especially in congressional committee hearings, treat business people.) For some of these precepts, think of the Knights of the Roundtable or the military, from which the origins of the guardian precepts come. Exert prowess is a very common trait among guardians, which leads to be obedient and disciplined, adhere to tradition, respect hierarchy, and be loyal. but also take vengeance, and deceive for the sake of the task, the latter is a hallmark of police tactics. However, make rich use of leisure, be ostentatious, and dispense largesse a very characteristic of the guardians, as they think they deserve it and can afford it–it is not their tax dollars! Be exclusive links with loyalty and treasure honor and is demonstrated by all of the uniforms, coats-of-arms, insignias, badges, and honorary campaign ribbons, much of which is earned by showing fortitude. Be fatalistic links with honor and the expected sacrifice the guardians are expecting to pay for their service, sometimes with death.
- A few definitions that I did not want in the body of the paper, but are interesting enough to warrant their inclusion here.
“Morality (from the Latin moralitas ‘manner, character, proper behavior’) is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with ‘goodness’ or ‘rightness.’” (Wikipedia)
“Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy which addresses questions of morality. The word ‘ethics’ is ‘commonly used interchangeably with ‘morality,” and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual.” (Wikipedia)
To be fair, we need to look at other considerations that have grown up over the years, thanks to philosophers, scientists, and religionists.
“Moral science may refer to the consideration of what is best for, and how to maximize the flourishing of, either particular individuals or all conscious creatures. It has been proposed that “morality” can be appropriately defined on the basis of fundamental premises necessary for any empirical, secular, and philosophical discussion and that societies can use the methods of science to provide answers to moral questions.” (Wikipedia)
Neuroscientists have come up with this idea: “the neural network underlying moral decisions overlapped with the network pertaining to representing others’ intentions … and the network pertaining to representing others’ (vicariously experienced) emotional states (i.e., empathy). This supports the notion that moral reasoning is related to both seeing things from other persons’ points of view and to grasping others’ feelings.” (Wikipedia) Various parts of the brain are seen to be at work in helping a person determine what particular moral system he or she will use at any given moment.
And “in modern moral psychology, morality is considered to change through personal development.” (Wikipedia), but studies suggest that political spectrums also determine the leaning of an individual’s moral compass: “Americans who identified as liberals tended to value care and fairness higher than loyalty, respect and purity. Self-identified conservative Americans valued care and fairness less and the remaining three values more. Both groups gave care the highest over-all weighting, but conservatives valued fairness the lowest, whereas liberals valued purity the lowest. Haidt also hypothesizes that the origin of this division in the United States can be traced to geohistorical factors, with conservatism strongest in closely knit, ethnically homogenous communities, in contrast to port-cities, where the cultural mix is greater, thus requiring more liberalism.” Wikipedia, especially the researches of Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham
- On this election day, I thought these two quotes would be appraise.
The Guardian – Lao Tzu
A leader is best
When people barely know that he exists,
Not so good when people today and acclaim him.
“Fail to honor people,
They fail to honor you”;
but of a good leader, who talks little
When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,
They will say, “We did this ourselves.’
and from The Urantia Book:
“The survival of democracy is dependent on successful representative government; and that is conditioned upon the practice of electing to public offices only those individuals who are technically trained, intellectually competent, socially loyal, and morally fit. Only by such provisions can government of the people, by the people, and for the people be preserved.” (UB 71:2.19)
