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.