THE ROYAL BANK OF CANADA.ARCHIVES Published by The Royal Bank of Canada

The Sense of Morality

What does morality mean to the individualand to society? These are vital questionsto ask at a time when moral conduct seemsto have gone out of style. Here we lookat morals from a logical standpoint. Andfind that it only makes sense to ’be good’...

[] Whatever happened to morality? There aretimes these days when people brought up accord-ing to the traditional moral code of the westernworld may wonder whether our society has lostsight of the difference between right and wrong.

The news over the past few years has done littleto dispel this pessimistic impression. To cite twoglaring examples, a racing car driver who hadbroken a rule to win a championship appealed hisdisqualification on the grounds that the infractionwas "common practice," and a student caughtcheating on her final exams sued her universitywhen it refused to grant her a degree.

Still, there is comfort in the thought that thenews media would not go to the trouble of reportingcases of moral and ethical dereliction if people didnot see anything wrong about them. If moralitywere really dead, then immorality would not beshocking. It would not be news.

It seems that what is missing is not so much thesense of morality as the sense of shame that oncerestrained people from doing things that weredeemed disreputable. It was not all that long agothat a person caught committing an immoral orunethical act might find himself ostracized in thecommunity, snubbed by his former friends, for-saken by his family, and/or out of a job.

The severity of social censure got out of handunder the Victorian moral regime which lingeredto a diminishing degree well into the 20th century.It fed itself on ruined men and fallen women whosechief offence was to make a mistake. It lacked theChristian spirit of forgiveness. The Victoriansmanaged to turn the essentially humanistic ethicof earlier times into a reign of terror of petty rules,self-righteous malice, and calculated hypocrisy.

We have come a long way from the days whenso-called morality stifled the normal urge to enjoyoneself within limits. On the whole, this has beena healthy development. The question is whetherwe now have come too far for our own good.

For if morality is based on the word of God, it isalso based on earthly common sense of the kindthat says that people must abide by some funda-mental rules if they are to live together in society.If, in the absence of a formal set of dos and don’ts,everyone were to assume the right to do whateverhe wants, society as we know it would fly apart.

True, we do have laws, but if the mass of thepopulation were to ignore the basic principles ofmorality, all the judges and policemen in theworld could not halt a return to the anarchy ofthe jungle. The body of law is merely a part ofthe ethical structure of civilization. In most

western countries, only three of the transgressionslisted in the Ten Commandments are againstthe law.

The jungle is not far away. As Walter Lippmannhas pointed out, "Men have been barbarians muchlonger than they have been civilized. They areonly precariously civilized, and there is a propen-sity, persistent as the force of gravity, to revertunder stress or strain, under neglect or temptation,to our first natures."

The rules that tell us that we must not cheat,lie to, steal from or otherwise despoil our neigh-bours form the barricades of our survival. It wasever thus.

In his brilliant paraphrase of the works of Platoin The Story of Philosophy, Will Durant recordedthe great Greek’s thoughts on the subject:

All moral conceptions revolve around thegood of the whole. Morality begins with asso-ciation and interdependence and organiza-tion; life in society requires the concessionof some part of the individual’s sovereigntyto the common order; and ultimately thenorm of conduct becomes the welfare of thegroup. Nature will have it so, and her judg-ment is always final; a group survives, incompetition or conflict with another group,according to its unity and power, accordingto the ability of its members to co-operatefor common ends.

What happens to that "unity and power" when,as now, there is little group pressure for peopleto govern themselves according to certain prin-ciples? For one thing, it shifts the weight ofresponsibility for social survival from institutionsonto the shoulders of individuals. "Liberty meansresponsibility," wrote George Bernard Shaw. "Thatis why most men dread it." The liberty we havegained has left it up to each of us to determine inour everyday deeds whether our world becomesa better or worse place to live.

As for group pressure, there can be as much ofit to do wrong as to do right; in some circles,it’s considered "dumb" to be moral. In his recentbook Ethics (and other Liabilities), Esquire Ma-gazine columnist Harry Stein quoted a young NewYork woman as telling him: "There are a lot ofcloset ethical people. It’s hard to speak up forsomething merely because it’s right -- you’realways afraid of looking silly." This caused Steinto exclaim, "My God, are we really that far gone?"

Cynicism and disillusioncan be as deadly as bombs

The pressure to cut moral corners is influencedby the dim view of humanity taken by the "smart"people in literature and the media who so often arethe role models for modern life-styles. There is asullen cynicism in the air, so pervasive thatHarvard University sociologist David Riesman haswarned that Americans are approaching the pointwhere the prevailing ethic is: "You’re a fool toobey the rules."

"We can destroy ourselves just as effectively bycynicism and disillusion as by bombs," wroteKenneth Clark, the illustrious historian. That issomething to remember as the cynics vie for con-trol of the public mind. The world is not in fact asrotten as they make it out to be, but they do havethe power to make it more rotten. It only takesmore people to believe them, to join them in theirscorn for the humanistic approach to life.

The cynics evince a mistrust of human nature.In the annals of philosophy, there have alwaysbeen two main schools of thought. One -- thecynical one -- is that man is inherently corruptand evil. The other is that man is inherently good,and is led by his environment into evil. The latter

school holds that man must strive to find, fulfiland express the intrinsic good that is in himself.

The negative view is mirrored in the modernslogan, ’tLook out for Number One." It implies thatwe must always be on the defensive against theevil propensities of others. The me-first philosophyalready has had a loosening effect on our socialcohesion. In a recent article on the decline of theAmerican family, educationist Urie Bronfenbrennerobserved: "We want so much to ’make it’ forourselves that we have almost stopped being acaring society that cares for others. We seem to behesitant about making a commitment to anyone oranything, including our own flesh and blood."

The moral way is to seekthe happiness of others

This is a far cry from the positive view ofmorality which has been defined and re-defined byhumanistic philosophers over the ages. BenedictSpinoza, for instance, thought that moral people"desire nothing for themselves which they do notdesire for all mankind."

Immanuel Kant declared that "morality is notproperly the doctrine of how we may make ourselveshappy, but how we may make ourselves worthy ofhappiness." Worthiness is to be found by seekingthe happiness of others. The starting-point is totreat people "in every case as an end, never as ameans."

In other words, it is immoral to use others as ifthey were objects for selfish purposes. Kant saidthat we must be conscious at all times that theirinterests and feelings are every bit as valuableas our own.

Out of this, some modern philosophers have devel-oped the test of respect for others versus self-serving rationality. Thus, as Kenneth E. Goodpasterand John B. Matthews Jr. write in the

Harvard Business Review, "a rational but notrespectful Bill Jones will not lie to his friendsunless he is reasonably sure he will not be foundout. A rational but not respectful Mary Smith willdefend an unjustly treated party unless she thinksit may be too costly to herself."

The latter case takes us into a further dimen-sion of morality in which courage is called for tostick by one’s principles. Most of us have foundourselves in situations where doing what is rightputs our own interests at stake. Either we do theright thing or we don’t; often, no one else is anythe wiser. It is merely a matter of being able tolook at ourselves unflinchingly in a mirror.

Moral courage is reinforced by a quality knownas integrity. "By integrity," wrote managementscholar Warren G. Bennis, "I mean those standardsof moral and intellectual honesty on which we baseour conduct and from which we cannot swervewithout cheapening our better selves."

Taking the long viewof present behaviour

The nurturing of one’s better self has never beenmore needed than in this age of individual liberty.We can use that liberty in two ways: to gainillusory self-satisfaction, or to seek out the good-ness that is in us. If self-fulfilment is looked uponas self-improvement, it can be a force for good inthe present milieu.

Still, many of us feel a little lost in this un-restricted world. It is fine to let our consciencesbe our guide, but our consciences themselves aresometimes in need of guidance. Since this guidanceis normally found in churches which many peopleno longer attend, there is currently some confusioneven over the simplest moral tenets. A Canadianpsychologist recently lamented: ~Ideas have losttheir unifying strength, and as a result there’sno beacon that serves as a guide for action anymore. Now there seem to be so many choices thatno one knows what’s right."

Yet there is a positive side to libertarianism,which is that it at least requires people to thinkfor themselves about what they are doing. In theirown best interests, they must try to be rational inthe fullest sense of the word, viewing their imme-diate concerns and desires in the light of the futureconsequences of their acts.

They may make mistakes in the process, butthey may also come to realize that immoral orunethical behaviour is nothing but short-sighted.They may learn the age-old lesson that today’sgratification is sometimes tomorrow’s grief.

Public morality is the sumof what we all do every day

They may discover, too, that decent and hon-ourable treatment of others is returned in kind --that the moral course is not a hard and narrowroad, but the way to broad new emotional vistas.For in its unadulterated form, morality is com-pounded of understanding and generosity.

It is also a force in human progress, because itenjoins us to add value to our own lives and tothose of others. It brings out the finest qualitiesin the human spirit. To consistently follow themoral course, you must be courageous, unselfishand thoughtful to others; to use an old-fashionedword, you must be a noble human being.

As nature would have it, this accords with yourpersonal obligation to a society which runs on thestrength of an unspoken contract between theindividual and the body politic. Under this system,every last person is duty-bound not to behave in away that will harm or unduly impose upon theothers in the group.

In writing of political scandals, the press usesthe term "public morality," but there is more to itthan the slippery ways of errant politicians. Publicmorality is the sum of the conduct of every citizen,every day.

"he great hope of society is individual cha-racter," wrote Lord Acton. Note the word "hope,"with its implication that life on earth can beimproved. The question we must ask ourselves asindividuals is: Would I want to live in the kind ofworld we would have if everyone acted as I do? Ifthe answer is no, then we should be actively con-sidering what we can do to better our ways.

The price of the common goodmay not be as high as we think

In these uncertain times, this may occasion abit of study. Enlightenment may be gained fromreligious and educational institutions, and fromlibrary shelves lined with works on moral andethical themes. In the crunch of a specific moraldilemma, of course, people must make up their ownminds and answer to their own consciences. Never-theless, a general grasp of moral principles cannotgo amiss.

Who among us is so saintly that we could notbenefit from a moral re-examination? The cleaningof our ethical houses may entail some self-sacrifice.As Denis Diderot put it, "There is no moral preceptthat does not have something inconvenient aboutit." In the practice of morality as in other activities,it takes exercise to build strength.

But the price we pay for the common good maynot be as high as we imagine. Despite the smartpopular notion that "nice guys finish last," virtuedoes have its own reward.

"In vain do they talk of happiness who neversubdued an impulse to a principle," wrote HoraceMann. "He who never sacrificed a present to afuture good, or a personal to a general one, canspeak of happiness only as the blind do of colours."So perhaps there is a selfish motive for being goodafter all.