|
Have we, in the interest of self-realization and the evolution of civilization, lost touch with the simple concept of right and wrong? Allow me to back up a couple of steps. Freedom is a sensitive subject. Everyone seems to agree it is better to be free than not. We want to be free to make our own decisions, including the choices of belief systems, life partners, friendships, careers and activities for our non-working hours. But then of course, there is the flip side of freedom. With total freedom, there will always be the possibility that any person or persons may decide to utilize this 'right' or 'privilege' for what we may refer to as less than noble purposes. One may debate, ad nauseum, what might qualify as noble or not noble, but that debate is a technique of deflection that prevents one from arriving at any sort of standard or method of discernment. Therefore, for the purpose of this essay, let us simply agree the reference to noble is merely a generalized nod to things that the vast majority of adult humans would consider probable of producing positive results for all concerned. Subjectivity is more than just a fixed reality for every human on earth. It has become (most certainly in democratic countries) a measuring standard for what is true, false, right, wrong, good, bad, etc. in all social frameworks. What's the problem with each individual deciding what is right and wrong for himself or herself, you may ask? Nothing, theoretically. This ideal sounds correct and justified on paper. The problem with this approach becomes apparent when you observe the undeniable fact that there have been, are, and (probably always) will be persons whose ideas of right and wrong do not exist harmoniously with the majority. An example of this common phenomenon would be: a woman who justifies her affair with a married man due to her perception of his marriage as being unhappy, her pursuit of her own personal happiness and/or her own disregard of the inviolability of marriage. The mistress frees herself from responsibility for her actions by pleading the case that she's not the person who took the vows, therefore she isn't guilty of breaking them. That is one isolated example, but certainly with a minimum of effort, a thinking person could easily produce multiple examples in life of the possible negative side effects of subjectivity. It would be foolish to mark subjectivity itself as bad, because without subjectivity, the experience of I and me would be non-existent. Part of the conundrum of the entire moral dilemma that humans endure is how the very reality of being an agent of subjectivity immediately forces us all into a position to choose from multiple paths, some of which will certainly be less than noble. Therefore we are all trapped by our own subjectivity. This chain of thought begs the question: is there, or could there possibly be, an objective standard that exists beyond or outside of our collective subjective preferences? More directly stated, if we can't all agree on moral issues because we're trapped by our own subjectivity, then might there be some objective standard we could look to instead? Unfortunately, despite the rabid insistence of some fundamentalist organizations, there doesn't seem to be a verifiable objective standard we can all reference for guidance. Why do I say that? Because the aforementioned trap of subjectivity is also suspect when any individuals or groups of individuals step forward and claim their belief system is the true system. In a world full of claims to objective truth, how does one choose the correct one? As many of them exclude the others, it would be impossible to correctly choose more than one. And more importantly, are any of the proffered objective standards correct? How could they possibly be verified, when they are all refracted through the dark glass of subjectivity? Now, however, I will entreat you to indulge me a thought. Let us suppose there actually is some objective standard. How could one go about seeking it out and verifying it? The absolute first step toward this endeavor would require the seeker to fully prepare himself or herself for admitting error in previous assumptions if the discovered evidence strongly indicated one's initial idea or ideas were incorrect. If a person continues to stubbornly cling to ideas despite contrary evidence, then all hope is automatically lost of uncovering the elusive objective standard. The second step would be to commit to an exhaustive examination of the available evidence. In this pursuit, the time spent could easily exceed the hours contained in several lifetimes, therefore it is no small undertaking. If accomplished satisfactorily, one could move to the next step. To move to the next step prematurely would make the deductions of the third step suspicious at best. The third step would be to take the available evidence and attempt a logical extrapolation of its data. Due to the multiplicity of belief systems, moral codes and standards on this planet, we may safely assume that no person in history has yet accomplished all three steps to a verifiable conclusion. Rather than being disappointed by this assertion, we might find solace instead. Why do I say that? Because while the absence of an objective standard may leave us somewhat in the dark, it also grants us the unique opportunity to establish our individual mettle via our efforts to find the correct path, or via our efforts to avoid a choice. Think about it; if the correct path was known without a shadow of a doubt, why would any reasonable person not take it, knowing the consequences of doing so would be consistently less than desirable? Today, in 2008, in the United States of America and in other free countries, we can readily observe the results of our exalted freedoms: We may believe or not believe in God, we may choose to promote life or extinguish it, we may observe the rights of others or ignore them with impunity, and so on. There are many, many ways we can practice our own freedom to the benefit or detriment of those we share this world with. So back to the original question: Have we, in the interest of self-realization and the evolution of civilization, lost touch with the simple concept of right and wrong? We have 'advanced' to the stage of the evolution of history where we judge the soundness of an activity on whether or not it occurs away from the observation of others. Thus there are an entire host of activities we have adopted in various social contexts that we feel are justified, simply because the specific adults involved in them are consenting. To answer the original query of this essay, ask yourself this: Is your measure of right and wrong based solely on your own desires, or does it include the desires of those outside your circle of reference? In light of this question, regardless of your (honest or delusional) answer, it may be observed that antiquated concepts like the Ten Commandments or the Golden Rule become much more relevant than modern ethos would prefer to allow. Because whether or not you feel it necessary to observe these tenets of behavior, their existence forever stands as a challenge to each individual; they compel us to make a moral choice with each and every decision. A universe without creatures such as us might well fall into the category of clockwork machinery. Because certainly, without the ability to even conceive of a concept such as the difference between right and wrong, the choice between the two disappears. Thus the 'myth' of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden carries with it a conspicuously accurate commentary on the human experience. |