Morality, Law, and Power: Does Might Make Right?
All human cultures have a morality of some sort, but do they all have the same morality? No, and this has led some to argue that there is no such thing as a universal morality. Instead, all morality is simply relative to time, place, and/or culture. The most extreme versions of this practically deny the existence of any sort of morality entirely, a position has led to extreme reactions from the other side.
Of course, the same argument about "morality" can also be made about "law." All cultures have laws, rules, and regulations and everyone knows that they aren't all the same across all cultures throughout history. Clearly there is no such thing as a single universal set of laws or regulations the bind everyone, but that hasn't led anyone to conclude that laws don't exist or that without such universal laws then all we have left is to submit to being ruled by the strongest or most powerful among us.
In Morality Matters, Roger Trigg writes:
Some people consider the rule of force by those who are powerful to be so abhorrent that it would justify promoting belief in the existence of a universal morality, one that is binding on everyone at all times and in all places. They take this position despite agreeing that logical and empirical arguments on behalf of the existence of such a morality are weak at best. They simply consider the fiction of a universal morality to be necessary to properly order society.
Trigg certainly has a valid point here — the absence of morality which is binding on everyone is like the absence of laws which are binding on everyone, and that's when we end up being ruled by the whim of powerful individuals. On the other hand, Trigg also makes a significant error in that he seems to imagine that the presence of universally binding morality eliminates the rule of the powerful.
Just as the powerful are able to subvert the application of any laws that might be generally binding (if not binding upon everyone at all time, then at least to all people in a culture or society), the same can easily happen with morality. Trigg presents them as if they were mutually exclusive alternatives and that might sound fine in theory, but here in the real world we all know that this just isn't the case. Moreover, it isn't obviously true that "universal" morality (which isn't quite defined) is necessary to prevent too much arbitrary rule by the powerful.
A society's laws aren't universal and instead are restricted to particular times and places. Why can't moral rules be similar? Why can't morality be something that can vary just as the laws do? Perhaps there is danger here in that too much variability might open the door wider to subversion by the powerful, but we already know that they can't be thwarted entirely anyway.
What's more, the mere fact that such a potential problem exists doen't allow us to conclude that morality must be universal or that the only valid morals are morals that are universal. First, such an argument isn't used in the context of laws and no one would accept it in the context of laws, so why would anyone accept it here? Second, the mere fact that some unpleasant state of affairs would be produced by the truth of a conclusion doesn't justify denying the conclusion. After all, not everything in the universe is pleasant.
Thus, we need to ask whether maintaining a fiction about universal morality really serves our interests or if it serves the interests of the powerful by causing us to think that we are gaining something we aren't. If we allow ourselves to believe a fiction like this, what other sorts of fictions might we become deluded into accepting? Might we not come to imagine that the powerful themselves weren't instrumental in creating the allegedly "universal" morality, writing into it provisions which just happen to serve their interests and which we now defend in the delusion that we're protecting ourselves from them?
Of course, the same argument about "morality" can also be made about "law." All cultures have laws, rules, and regulations and everyone knows that they aren't all the same across all cultures throughout history. Clearly there is no such thing as a single universal set of laws or regulations the bind everyone, but that hasn't led anyone to conclude that laws don't exist or that without such universal laws then all we have left is to submit to being ruled by the strongest or most powerful among us.
In Morality Matters, Roger Trigg writes:
Some people consider the rule of force by those who are powerful to be so abhorrent that it would justify promoting belief in the existence of a universal morality, one that is binding on everyone at all times and in all places. They take this position despite agreeing that logical and empirical arguments on behalf of the existence of such a morality are weak at best. They simply consider the fiction of a universal morality to be necessary to properly order society.
The alternative to a rational morality claiming a universal applicability has always been control by the powerful, whether that means the wealthy, those able to use the most force or simply those in the majority. Without the rule of law, resting on a moral foundation, bare power will always win.
Morality matters, not just because it should govern our personal behaviour and the way we treat others. It should provide the context in which all affairs are conducted, and nations governed. Morality can never be the product of individual whim, or passing fashion. It is the indispensable foundation for any properly ordered society.
Morality vs. Law
Trigg certainly has a valid point here — the absence of morality which is binding on everyone is like the absence of laws which are binding on everyone, and that's when we end up being ruled by the whim of powerful individuals. On the other hand, Trigg also makes a significant error in that he seems to imagine that the presence of universally binding morality eliminates the rule of the powerful.
Just as the powerful are able to subvert the application of any laws that might be generally binding (if not binding upon everyone at all time, then at least to all people in a culture or society), the same can easily happen with morality. Trigg presents them as if they were mutually exclusive alternatives and that might sound fine in theory, but here in the real world we all know that this just isn't the case. Moreover, it isn't obviously true that "universal" morality (which isn't quite defined) is necessary to prevent too much arbitrary rule by the powerful.
A society's laws aren't universal and instead are restricted to particular times and places. Why can't moral rules be similar? Why can't morality be something that can vary just as the laws do? Perhaps there is danger here in that too much variability might open the door wider to subversion by the powerful, but we already know that they can't be thwarted entirely anyway.
What's more, the mere fact that such a potential problem exists doen't allow us to conclude that morality must be universal or that the only valid morals are morals that are universal. First, such an argument isn't used in the context of laws and no one would accept it in the context of laws, so why would anyone accept it here? Second, the mere fact that some unpleasant state of affairs would be produced by the truth of a conclusion doesn't justify denying the conclusion. After all, not everything in the universe is pleasant.
Thus, we need to ask whether maintaining a fiction about universal morality really serves our interests or if it serves the interests of the powerful by causing us to think that we are gaining something we aren't. If we allow ourselves to believe a fiction like this, what other sorts of fictions might we become deluded into accepting? Might we not come to imagine that the powerful themselves weren't instrumental in creating the allegedly "universal" morality, writing into it provisions which just happen to serve their interests and which we now defend in the delusion that we're protecting ourselves from them?
Source...