What does it mean to be good?
Why do we all agree that the current exposure of the behaviour of the MPs is that they have not behaved ethically? It appears that many were encouraged to see expenses in lieu of the salaries they forfeited, but too many individuals had pushed the collective collusion past a blurred unwritten line. What was acceptable at one level became unequivocal fraud at some unspecified point. The same issue applies to the human rights privacy law becoming a means for a footballer to hide his adultery. It is clear the law was never drafted for such use but a collective collusion has encouraged a general abuse. After the financial collapse in 2008 it is possible to see how far people had pushed the collective collusion behind behaviour that was clearly wrong but technically legal.
What is right or wrong? Good or bad is ALWAYS contextual - if I shoot someone just about to be burned at the stake is it still murder? Moral behaviour is on a sliding scale, being guilty of manslaughter is different to full blown pre-meditated murder. Taking one action in one context and examining whether it is the same action in another context is at the heart of our trial system. Our social and legal evolution is much more the sum of many small incremental changes than radical landmark shifts. There is a philosophical question that has no precise answer 'when is a pile a heap?' This is the blurry place we all live, it is not the grey place without black or white but the blurry place where things change, between a pile and a heap, where one action is right for a pile but another is right for a heap.
The archbishop of Canterbury’s concern with the way Bin Laden was assassinated was considered the wrong response. What is this saying about our collective ideas, where collectively are we in the grey area of assassination, warfare and regime change?
Incremental movement is as important as the big shifts. When was it first possible for a single woman to live unmarried with a man and be socially acceptable? Was it when a particular woman and man did so? Or a particular number? Or in context with other social changes? I certainly couldn't answer. This blurred 'time of change' in collective behaviour applies to most social changes and thinking and is underpinned by our values.
Our values interpret the context, or give us our story and collectively we buy into the best story. Values reflect needs and our needs change. Our social needs can change infinitesimally from a pile to a heap, change however, is often only recognised when the heap is so big we can no longer deny its existence or it has started to smell. At this point the collective collusion can turn very suddenly and like a flock of birds we correct our flight and swoop in a different direction. Suddenly we have a different story.
Is our morality and ethical thinking on catch up or -even worse -static, rather than fine-tuned to our changing needs? When is 'good' behaviour relative and when should it remain steadfast. What triggers collective and individual moral responses? We are manipulated, literally bombarded with emotive language and images, so much so that we probably barely notice. Yet all our responses and behaviour are in context, and it is the context that gives anything meaning; the context is the story. Good and bad is decided by the story we believe or are given.
How do we interpret actions and context? As a mindless collective or in a darkly self-interested way? Do we lazily follow the idealists, relativists or the nihilists; 'stealing is wrong',' this isn't theft', ‘nobody cares', 'no-one will notice', or adhere to what we believe 'religion is bad and science is good' (or vice versa). Simplistic and lazy interpretations, allow us to opt out of engaging morally and give rise to automatic actions and responses and when it gets a little grey we can choose not to engage or respond with - 'it’s nothing to do with me', or 'they told me to', or simply to just follow the collective or rules.
Examining our actions before they come to court, before we are called to account socially, is important (there is much to be said for a catholic confessional) -there is purpose in examining what is a 'good' life. It is the beginning of wisdom. However, when it comes to questions of good actions over bad, it appears we are collectively readier to jump on a band wagon over someone else's actions than examine our own. We are much better at assessing other people morally than we are at assessing ourselves. (1) We are also much more likely to suffer from collective collusion that we would like to believe.
Being dishonest or cheating can be contagious, research has shown that people are influenced by other people’s moral behaviour. Seeing someone getting away with dishonesty has a significant effect on the extent of similar dishonesty especially when it someone we are connected to (part of our story). In a classic piece of research people were found to be more likely to cheat (in a test that rewarded financially) when someone from the same college or 'in-group' was seen to cheat and get away with it, and they were less likely to cheat when someone from another or 'out-group' was witnessed cheating. (2) Most people if given the idea they can 'get away with it' will cheat or be dishonest 'a little bit'.
What stops people behaving dishonestly is when they are made to focus on moral issues, such as the Ten Commandments. (3)
We do know what is good action or right behaviour and when we stop and think morally- as a good person we behave better. We can (and should) think about our actions and interpretations even when it is uncomfortable. Being ‘good’ is as real and as elusive as beauty. Like beauty, good character and right action are easily recognised but out of context can slip through ones grasp as easily as water in the hand; tangible but elusive. What we understand as 'right' behaviour demands responsibility and often the risk of individual autonomy. This kind of thinking can seem under threat today by the collective collusion that expediency is increasingly mistaken for wisdom. - ‘Get as much as you can while you can’, is the safest and wisest action in a hungry unstable world, or ‘follow the rules and don't question them’ and you will keep your job, and follow the crowd and you will look good.
Logical thinking and all endeavours that seek objective understanding require understanding itself to be a singular ingredient, for example, understanding ‘making a cake’ means more than knowing all the ingredients, you also need to include the crucial ingredients of hunger, taste and human action; the context, without which the cake itself holds no meaning.
Do you care about the following question- What do you seek to experience? A happy life or a good life? Positive psychology is discovering they are connected, which is no surprise, however science is only as good as the questions it asks. Science can inform but we have to be open to the context in which we act. And we are the authors of the context.
Understanding that we chose each moment and that all action is part of a bigger collective might wake us up to a responsibility of action. The world we inhabit is just the sum of the millions of individual choices and actions, and all these actions influence collective action and interpretation.
Is a good life a moral life? I don't know, Good living is definitely incremental as well as contagious and I am happier in a world that is the sum of a thousand small white end of grey choices rather than the black end.
1.S.E Taylor & J.D.Brown, (1988)Illusion and wellbeing. A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological bulletin, 103(2), 193-210
2. Francesca Gino, Shahar Ayal, and Dan Ariely. (2009) Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior.The Effect of One Bad Apple on the Barrel Volume 20—Number 3.Association for Psychological Science p.393.
3. Nina Mazar, On Amir and Dan Ariely. (2008)The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 45, No. 6, pp. 633-644.
No comments:
Post a Comment