Free to eat, free to be

In case you want to read it for yourself, you can find the story in the second chapter of the very first book of the Bible. Like any good story it has characters, a plot, tension, and as we're so used to today, an unsatisfactory ending. You see, that was nothing that Hollywood thought up, even if they like to think they did.

It's a relatively simple story. There are only four characters: the creator of the universe (more specifically, the garden in which the story takes place), a serpent-like creature (who can, however, walk and talk), and a unsuspecting heroine/hero pair, Adam & Eve. The plot is rather simple as well. The one in charge of the garden is very pleased with both the garden and its new tenants and he gives them the absolute run of the place ... except, well, for one particular tree in the middle of the garden, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: if they eat from that, the one in charge says, they'll die.

The conflict in the story is not long in coming. Before you know it, one day while out and about, the snake-like character tells Eve that they can eat the fruit from the forbidden tree; they had been fed a line of BS. They could eat it and they wouldn't die. Well, to make a short story shorter, Eve eats, passes the fruit to Adam who eats, and lo, and behold, nobody drops dead. We've now got a bit of a dilemma.

Adam & Eve are, we should know, different after eating than before. We're told they're ashamed they're naked and hide themselves, and when the one in charge comes around and finds out what they've been up to, there's a lot of yelling, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, for the snake-like guy gets his feet (and voice) taken away, and everybody is thrown out of the garden. Poor Adam & Eve are now forced to work for a living. (I told you it ended poorly.)

The question for me is: what's this story about? We all know that it has been used in any number of unsatisfactory ways: as the source of Original Sin (a theological interpretation), the justification for the suppression of women (a sociological interpretation), and for the rebellious and aggressive nature of human beings (a psychological interpretation). It is all those, and all the others we've dreamed up in the meantime, that I'd like to ignore for now, and just go back to the story itself.

A road less taken

This may seem like quite the diversion, but bear with me. The inherent difficulty with the "freedom" notion makes it however necessary.

We here in the West, whether we like it or not, have been massively influenced, and not always negatively, by the Bible. No, no, I'm not going to start thumping. I'm not that way. Regardless of what we may think about it otherwise, it is full of very helpful, illustrative stories that can help us get a different take on many things that we simply take for granted. We have to keep in mind that almost all of us have only ever read it in translation, and anyone who has ever taken a foreign language (let alone actually learn one) knows unequivocally that a simple one-to-one transfer of concepts, thoughts and ideas from one language another is as good as impossible. I think that we can agree, however, that the basic facts are there, but as with any story, there may be an accepted, traditional, even "official" interpretation, but that doesn't mean by a long shot that this particular interpretation is the best interpretation, whatever that may be.

From my days of studying literature, I'd like to propose that the "best" interpretation is the one that fits the facts of the story as presented, free from as much prejudice, ideology or pre-conceived notions as possible. In other words, I think it's a good idea to acknowledge when these factors are at work and not just act as if they're not there. What is more, I would like to propose that each and every story has something to tell us, and whatever that is should be discoverable in the story itself; that is, we don't need to go outside somewhere to find the justification for the story's existence. It can, in a word, stand on its own. Yes, I agree, this is just a bit simplistic, but I'm looking for the common denominator between those who see everything in this particular book, and those who see nothing.

Oh, the story ... well, we'll have to get to that next time, but so you know: it's a story about an (alleged) apple.

Going analog

This isn't going to be the first time in my life that I decide to buck a popular trend, but I want to say something about the analog part of our lives. The focus of the last couple of posts has been "equality" and in the last one I specifically maintained that it is, in fact, a digital notion: equal is equal, or weren't not talking equal; it is or it isn't. I can't emphasize enough how important this notion is, nor can I stress how important it is that every single one of us come to terms with what we think about the concept and how we are going to deal with it. It's essential, if not existential.

Like all good concepts, however, it is, and should be, often paired with another idea, for one because they are in a sense interdependent, but they are to a large extent co-dependent as well. And if usually the case when we get to such fundamental notions, one of them is digital (equality), but the other is analog (freedom). I know, I know, I can hear you all grumbling already, but suspend your disbelief for just a minute and think about this:

Complete and utter freedom is an illusion. We can't (and shouldn't) just do anything we please whenever we want: yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, taking your neighbors new car for a joy ride, walking into any given woods and just cutting down your next Christmas tree, just to name a few (granted, innocuous) examples.

On the other hand, our thoughts are often free, or as free as we would like them to be. We can imagine just about whatever we want to whenever we want to (though I'd appreciate it greatly if you wouldn't do so while driving). In other words, we exist somewhere between complete and limited freedom, and it is therefore not unreasonable to conceive "freedom" as a continuum, one that crosses mere physical boundaries but which extends from absolutely none to an idealized, unbounded limitlessness. This is what makes "freedom" analog.

It is for this reason that I believe it is a bit more difficult to really grasp the notion. What is "freedom"? What does it mean "to be free"? Yes, what?

Leaving digital mode

It will have occurred, even to the casual observer, that, besides trying to keep things closer to home, our generally accepted ideas of "equality" are ultimately intertwined with other notions, like "responsibility", which, truth be told, are not always applied in a consistent way. This isn't without it problems, for it does create – within us, and around us – an air of uncertainty and confusion that most of us, quite honestly, would much rather not have to deal with. The problem is, we can try to ignore it, but it won't go away.

What I like about the notion of "equality" the most is that it is, to phrase it in modern terms, a digital concept. In the sense that we've been using it here, in particular, either the other person is your equal or not. This, of course, has nothing to with whether s/he is smarter than you or whether you can run faster or whether s/he has been successful with her latest diet and you haven't. That's not what I'm talking about at all. It is – or at least should be – clear to everyone that everyone is in some way unique, that is, different from everybody else. Even identical twins are not 100% identical. What we need to keep in mind is that being different has nothing to do with being better or worse (which is how we tend to frame "equality". What is different is, well, just different, no more, no less.

If you have to (or if you feel the need to) qualify the term in any way, then we're not talking about the same thing. To me, for example, I take (almost all of) Mr. Jefferson's words literally, and as I believe deep in his heart he intended, that all [human beings ... not just literally "men"] are created equal. Granted, it took lots of folks well over a hundred years to "get it", and some haven't got it yet, and while that may be reason to give up hope, I'm not quite that far yet, but that's another story.

It's just one of those things: it is, or it isn't; we are, or we aren't. If we aren't, of course, everything I've been saying up until now is pretty much out the window. There are some ideas we just need to take seriously, whether we like it or not.

Who's responsible?

Actually allowing someone to take on responsibility is a matter of trust, and we are more likely to trust those we know than those we don't. This isn't necessarily a good thing, but it's the usual thing, so it's the easiest place to start. Oh, I'm sure there are those relatively close to you – that is, people in your own neighborhood or community – whom you don't really trust, but you going to have to give it a try.

If you'll recall a couple of posts ago when we were trying to figure whether we could even get here, I tried to point out that all the discussion in the world doesn't help if you don't recognize your discussion partner as your equal. And this is the real crux of the matter.

As long as "the other" is not your equal, there can be no real discourse. If there is no real discourse, there can be no real decisions. And, if there are no real decisions, then things will just continue to get worse, because in the end it's only the anonymous bureaucrats from somewhere else who will be "responsible". And we know they're not responsible at all. This is one of the biggest challenges you'll have to face. If you can't accept someone you can look in the eye, then forget about all those faceless others whom you'll never meet in your life. You won't care; they won't care. And when nobody cares, nothing gets done because no one's responsible.

Like most people you have long proclaimed the equality of all. We all have, but the time has come to put up or shut up. It's not just that you might be responsible for you, you are also responsible for ensuring that this whole thing gets off the ground, and until you allow the other to be your equal, we won't be going anywhere – fast, or slow.

Yes, think global, drink local, and responsibly … and part of that is acknowledging others at the bar. After all, only alcoholics drink alone.

Drink responsibly

Since I had my mind on wine last time, that must have been the reason that I noticed that a lot of advertisements for alcoholic beverages come with the disclaimer to "drink responsibly". I think I know what is meant, but is that what the tagline really means? It would seem to me there are two sides to the responsibility coin: there is that for which you are responsible, and that that you are made responsible for. They don't always match.

There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be responsible people. One-on-one, between you and me, well, there's not that much we misunderstand when it comes to the word, but let it be somebody not so close to us, someone just a little different from us and all of a sudden, the word can take on a much stricter, sometimes sinister meaning. Too often – and this is particularly true of too many conservatives I know – responsibility gets lumped together very quickly with "fault" and before you know it, we're blaming people for being irresponsible or for simply being responsible for their own plight, whether they are or not. It's much easier to blame someone than understand them.

I mean, it's quite clear, isn't it, that anybody who has ever collected welfare is a lazy, ne'er-do-well who just wants to live off of other's hard work. When we look at the numbers, though, all the people who have received welfare handouts combined for the last half-a-century haven't collected as much as a handful of bankers who were justifying their salaries and bonuses with the crazy notion that they worked harder than anybody else. We know in the meantime that's just not true. It's clear that a person who took out loans to get a decent education and now can't find a job because they're not looking hard enough. And if they take what they can get – temporary contracts and lower pay, parttime contracts because it saves employers money, well, that's obviously their fault that they can't pay back their loans. Why should we let them off the hook?

No, to me, irresponsible is not knowing what you're talking about, but talking anyway; it's grossly generalizing instead of being informed; it's rushing to judgment without reasoning; it's blaming the victim instead of finding the real perpetrators and holding them responsible.

These kinds of things, though, are best done closer to home. It's the best place to start and where you have the greatest chance of making a difference. Drink responsibly, locally.

Think global, drink local

As I was driving to work the other morning, there was a truck from one of the local wine-growers co-ops in front of me with a marketing tagline that caught my eye, so I made it the title of this post. While the marketing folks certain thought it was cute, there is actually more to the saying than first meets the eye.

We live in an increasingly globalized world. Like anything else, there are up- and downsides to the process. Massive, impersonal, transnational, country-independent corporations are one thing, and they certainly do their part to ensure that mom-and-pop on the corner get pensioned down Memory Lane. By the same token, the global reaction to this phenomenon is also not all that different from place to place. There are increasing numbers of people worldwide who are beginning to ask themselves just what advantage the big players have. In other words, local awareness is being stimulated at the same time.

The more we feel that we're being overwhelmed and overrun by "outside forces", the more we also feel the necessity to circle the wagons a bit closer to home. This is reflected in the various strivings for national independence, be it the Kurds or the Sudanese or the Sri Lankans, the various Balkan states, or anyone else who thinks it's time they had their own country. All of these are, to my mind, a simple reflection of the desire within all of to have just a little more to say about what happens to us, to be just a little more involved in decisions that directly affect our lives.

This is what the vast majority of politicians can't get their heads around. Anonymous decision-making processes being sliced, diced, and compromised perhaps thousands of miles away by people who've never been to our town or our neighborhood just don't make the kind of decisions we make around here.

We've been long told, by parents, teachers, preachers, community leaders, that we need to take charge of our own destinies, but the whole system has mutated away from all that. We've stood by and watched our power simply get sucked away to some anonymous center that isn't the center of anything anymore. Maybe it's time to rethink all this.

Can you get there from here?

I've been told that up in Maine, if you ask for directions, the most likely response you'll get is "you can't get there from here" (and then they go on to explain how you do). That's got to be what a lot of you are thinking right now, and I certainly don't blame you. The demands are high, but so are the stakes. It won't be easy, but it's possible.

One of the most fortunate twists of fate I've had in my life was the opportunity to study at the University of Giessen (Germany) in the late 70s/early 80s. Most of all, I had the privilege of having a couple of the most insightful and profound thinkers of the time as my teachers and mentors (Hans-Eberhard Piepho & Lothar Bredella), neither of whom any of you have ever heard of, but that doesn't diminish the power of their thinking one iota. Piepho was pragmatic and probably the best foreign-language teacher I'd ever experienced, but his whole focus was on communicative competence. Bredella was the philosopher who had studied with Hans-Georg Gadamer and who introduced me intensely to the thinking of the contemporary German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, undoubtedly one of the profoundest thinkers of the 20th century. What all of these guys had in common, however, was an unshakeable faith in the human capability to communicate reasonably, to discourse rationally, and as a result, come to understandings that were grounded enough to actually make the world a better place. We could use more of them these days.

Although idealists in the philosophical sense of the world, they could envision what is possible. Through their practice they instilled that vision into their students. As bright, and capable, and deep as they might have been, they engaged their students as partners – equal partners – in the search for knowledge and truth. They ... I know it is hard to believe ... practiced what they preached.

We need to talk, discourse, discuss, and debate, but not to see who in the end is right and who is wrong, not to win or score points or obtain bragging rights. No, we need to communicate. We need to acknowledge our discussion partners not as adversaries to be defeated, but rather as agents of agreed-on change. We must accept the "other" as an free and equal participant in the discussion that brings benefit to all. And that's the challenge that many will have difficulty overcoming.

What do we really want, take 2

Unlike a cat chasing its tail, sometimes it's simply good to get back to where you started. We need to talk, find consensus, listen, discuss, debate. It should be clear that the reciprocity of which I spoke a couple of posts ago when discussing the establishment of moral standards is actually applicable in more realms than just the moral. Personally, I think all decisions are moral decisions, but I understand that some others might want to take a more restricted view. Nevertheless, we can't make any headway at all if we don't recognize certain truths as being self-evident. And, regardless of how self-evident they may be, we should still be clear on what they mean.

To reduce it to simplest terms, as I see it, two conditions must be met in order for a true discussion, for true discourse to take place: the participants must be free, that is, free to express their views, free to think differently, free to think outside or inside the box, free to think in directions that you may have never thought of; and, the participants must be equal, that is, when it comes to discourse, serious discourse, there can be no hierarchy, no better-than, no smarter-than, no tougher-than.

I know, I know ... I can hear some of you squealing already, but sorry, we need to have a common understanding of what the terms "freedom" and "equality" mean, and beyond that, we need to understand what it means to live by those understandings and not just play lip-service to them. For the most part, most of us have given up our equality to the experts (cf. "Roszak and Eliot", "Expert terror"), and most of us have given up our freedom, most often for security (cf. "Fear of freedom", "Free – really?") . But I'm here to tell you: we don't live in a safe world. We never did, and, chances are very good, if we ever do, it will be a long time coming. And moreover, a whole lot of the mess we're in these days is simply because we let the so-called experts have their way.

At the end of the day, then, don't you think it might be about time to finally realize that if we're going to be affected about whatever is decided, maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't be a bad idea if we were part of the decision-making process? I do.

Thinking outside the box

Terry Pratchett once wrote, "I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it." Encouraged by what I wrote about last, I'm making a ruling that there is some going on in there, so there's nothing stopping us from getting out of it and thinking further.

You see, the reason I figured the guy I wrote about last time missed the point is because he wants to apply a top-down solution to a bottom-up problem. The things that affect you the most are the things that need to be addressed most expediently. Yes, you have to get everyone involved as much as possible. You win "converts" by demonstrating that it is worth the time and effort to self-direct as much as possible of one's own fate.

There will come a time when you have to go beyond the community; but, when a wider range of communities find agreed to solutions, then the next level of the hierarchy, so to speak, can be addressed (or eliminated, as the case may be ... we may not need as many layers of anything as we currently have). After all, we need roads and water supplies and sewage treatment and garbage collection and energy and telecommunications, and these simply need to be addressed on a larger scale, but we haven't taken the time to figure out what that scale might be.

We'll never figure it out, though, if we keep insisting in thinking the same old way we always have. That's where we are right now, carping at each other with such useless verbiage that nothing at all can get done and the divide-and-conquer types have free reign in, well, dividing and conquering. We're not doing ourselves a favor by not talking. It hasn't got us anywhere and insisting on perpetuating what isn't working is simply not very bright as I see it.

I can't say it enough: we need to start thinking seriously about what is really important to us. We need to start talking seriously about the things we take seriously. And, we have to be open enough to the "other" to recognize that s/he just might have something to say, as an individual, that is worth listening to.

Thinking inside the box

Things aren't like a lot of us would like them to be, and what is surprising is that every now and again, we find ourselves agreeing with people whom we probably wouldn't even normally talk to. Don't you just hate it when that happens? You always hope nobody you know is around to see it.

Not too long ago, a friend suggested I read something in the American Conservative, a publication, I'll admit, I don't have RSS feeding me, but in keeping with my policy of if-you-really-want-me-to-I'll-read-it, well, I read it. It was a coherent, fairly well argued piece about fixing Congress. It should be clear by now that I'm not all that convinced there's anything left to fix, but in principle, I found myself agreeing with a lot of what he had to say: his point that it is really about governance is, to my mind, spot on, and we would agree that the left-right debate is a red herring; we agree, as well, that in essence money and power are at the heart of the issue, and in this regard, we also agree that whatever solutions may be found can and must cut widely across currently accepted ideological lines; we agree that the people most affected should be part of deciding on the solution, and that's what we have lost most touch with. In other words, it has everything to do with being serious about things that matter to you. And the place you have to start is by talking to people, and very often people you wouldn't normally be talking to.

His approach, of course, was one inside the box. And I suppose if you're in a box, or think you are, that's the best place to start. What encouraged me was not that we disagreed on points but that we agreed that if we didn't start talking to one another, openly and seriously, we were in for more trouble than we really all are bargaining for. As I've been advocating for some time now: we need to start figuring out what matters to us as why, and then we need to figure out ways to get things to be the way we want them to be.

And there you have it: it's more about we than me. That's why too many people are probably not going to get it.

Surprised?

It's been a long journey, when considered in terms of blog-miles, that's for sure. What we can see, however, is that there is still common ground for believer and non-believers, for the politically and the socially inclined. If we're willing to accept that the others may -- even in their own way -- be right, we still have a chance. It is not cultures that are important, not nationalities, and certainly not religions. No, what is important is only what binds us as humans: similar desires.

What I like about this approach is that there are no absolutes, but the willy-nilly relativity that drives all of us crazy is not there either. In other words, it is possible to find common ground for discourse, discussion, and debate ... if we want to. That's the key element in the whole equation, though: whether we want to.

I haven't been everywhere, by any stretch of the imagination, but, I'm pretty sure I've been more places than many people who may be reading this. I'm not bragging, I'm simply reporting -- and all of you who have traveled extensively and who have seen a bit more of life than your own slice of reality will certainly agree: deep down, at base, fundamentally we humans share much more than separates us. No matter where I've gone and whom I've talked with, some common themes kept and keep appearing: food, shelter and clothing; something meaningful to do; a certain degree of safety and security; the ability to celebrate the happy moments of life; the comfort and support of others when things go bad; something better for the children than we had; a simple, fruitful, relatively happy, safe, and healthy life. What is so hard to understand about that?

Yes, there are fanatics of all sizes, shapes and colors; they speak all different kinds of languages and they all share the same delusion: that whatever they think it better/more important/more right than what others think. These people are a minority. A loud, vociferous, boisterous, and often aggressive minority, but a minority nevertheless. We need to spend more time thinking about all the things that we have in common instead of focusing on what is different about the others. We need to find more opportunities to engage others who are different from ourselves, if for no other reason than to experience that the reality-pie can be sliced any number of ways. We need to want for others what we want for ourselves. And, we should be ready to admit -- to ourselves and others -- that we don't have the exclusive right to wisdom or morality. We humans are all in this together, and the sooner we realize that, the better off all of us will be.

There's more?

I would hate for anyone to think that I thought up the framework behind our little thought experiment of the past couple of posts. Nothing could be further from the truth. No, these stages of moral reasoning that have been described are the results of the work of Lawrence Kohlberg and his associates at Harvard University. Kohlberg developed this framework, this taxonomy, in the 1970s. It's still applicable today, if for no other reason than it give us all an independent and understandable (that is, neutral) framework to discuss what too often become hotly debated, religious issues. What we should realize by now is that there is morality beyond religion. Yes, religionists and atheists need a way to agree.

Of course, there is one more stage to Kohlberg's model. We ended with unjust laws the last time, but the question that that idea raises is what do you do when the laws don't work at all. His sixth, and final, stage in the taxonomy, then, addresses the idea of moral principles; that is, clearly formulated statements of behavior that are capable of addressing any and every morally relevant situation. What would such a principle look like? Fortunately, we all already know.

You will recall that the notion of reciprocity; that is, of give-and-take, of an acceptable back-and-forth between the parties involved; lies at the root of his whole framework. That means there should be universal principles of reciprocity that any and everyone should be able to agree to, once they recognize their value. The ultimate expression of reciprocity is known to most of us as "the Golden Rule" (Do unto others as you would have others do unto you). What is interesting about this "rule" is that it is the only statement, the only tenant, the only doctrine, the only belief (if you will), that is common to every single religion in the world. The Christians, the Moslems, the Jews, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Ba'hai, the Zoastrians, the you-name-them have some form of this statement as one of their core beliefs. It is the "Golden Rule", oddly enough, that unites all religions, it is their common core of belief.

I know, I know, the non-believers, the atheists and agnostics among you are all saying, "that's fine and good ... for them ... but what about us?" I'm glad you asked. One of the most influential philosophers of the Western world, Immanuel Kant, formulated a similar principle in his Critique of Practical Reason, where he writes that we should "act according to those principles which we desire should be raised to universal principles". In other words, act/behave however you would like that anyone anywhere at anytime should be allowed to act/behave ... or, if you can do it, anybody should be allowed to do it.

Who would have thought? It fits ... all the way around.

Is that it?

While just about all that was presented last time found, I'm pretty sure, little opposition, things are going to get interesting now. I think most of us agree: if it's legal, it's right. But the question we need to pose, then, is: are their unjust laws? This may be a bit more difficult to decide.

What the banks did leading up to the financial crisis of 2009 was legal. Was it right? Was it good? Was it moral? What the banks are doing now: is it right? Is it good? Is it moral ... it's legal, but ... ? What about the laws denying African-Americans the right to vote and to be subjected to segregation? They were laws. It was legal, but was it right? Was it moral? Or, to go abroad: in 1938 the Nazis passed a law that Jews weren't human. It was legal, to be sure, but was it right? Was it moral? In other words, can there be such a thing as unjust laws?

I think we can agree that there is. We've encountered them repeatedly in our history ... not just American but the history of humanity. I chose today especially to raise the issue because the American Revolution that so many love so well ... the all-holy Constitution, the Declaration of Independence ... were all based on the premise that there are unjust laws. No taxation without representation. (But the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism against a global corporation, the East India Company, which was using the king for its own purposes ... how ironic is that in light of the recent Tea-Party rantings and the drivel being spewed about in the current presidential campaigns?)

And, now, if we think the thought a bit farther, could it be that laws can be made that are, as the Americans like to phrase it, "constitutional", but at the same time be immoral, that is, unjust? Most definitely, and it is happening repeatedly. Examples? Why, of course: the Patriot Acts, the National Defense Act (my personal favorites, which is why I mention them so often). This puts a lot of things on whole new footing, does it not? What we find is that justice, morality, and all that goes with it, depend on more than just feelings or laws. We are called upon to actually think about what we believe and what we hold to be good and true and right. What one person or just one group thinks to be that may not be what another group thinks, so we need to be able to discuss and debate and consensually determine what such moral standards are. And if we can't talk to each other anymore? What then?

If you ask me, things are not looking all that good for the home team.

How can we know?

Bear with me for another post or two ... I know, this is taxing some folks ability to follow, not because they're not able, rather, if I'm right, they're just tired of trying to figure it all out. Wasn't there a time when the world was simpler? Wasn't there a time that was just better? Unfortunately, the answer is "no" on all counts. We, as humans, only have our nows. We can learn from the past -- if we want to -- and we can aim at the future, but every decision we make today is a decision for what's to come.

So, how do we figure out what's good or bad ... and this apart from any religious doctrine? Is this even possible? I think the answer is yes, and I want you to accompany me through a little thought experiment. Follow along and ask yourself if this makes sense:

A baby in its crib is either asleep or awake, full or hungry, clean or soiled. In the former instances, s/he is generally content; in the latter, s/he lets the environment know that all is now well in the world. In other words, if s/he is content, it is good; when s/he is not content, it is bad. I'm not saying that's what the baby is thinking, far from it. But this is the foundation of all morality, wouldn't you say?

A bit later, the child begins to think along similar lines, but having to deal increasingly with others (such as at school, or on the playground, or ...) the mode of thinking changes. We start recognizing a kind of I'll-scratch-your-back-you-scratch-mine, a one-hand-washes-the-other mentality arising. We have our friends and best friends and best-best friends and most of all these finely tuned classifications have to do with what you do for me and what I'm willing to do for you. What is good depends on that reciprocal relationship that we establish with others.

A bit later, say, around adolescence, we notice another change. Quite often, kids realize who's really in charge, who has the power, namely adults, so there is a sense of if I please the adults (only as much as necessary, just enough to make them like me), I can get what I want, and that's good, isn't it? In other words, we find a nice-girl/nice-boy kind of morality. By the time most of us are in high school, however, we realize the limitations of this approach.

And it is here that rules come in. What is fair or unfair is determined by the rule, the regulations, the laws. People talk and debate and discuss and (at least in the West) by majority rule, decisions are made that are good for all of us: laws are established that help us get along with one another. This is what we might call a law-and-order morality.

Make sense? I thought it would. All along the way there is a certain give-and-take (the technical term for which is "reciprocity", and each of these attitudes helps us establish what is good, right and proper. But, does it end here? As we will see next time, no.