Monday, August 22, 2011
Law before the laws
Think of this analogy: A tribe of people lives on an isolated island. They have no formal governmental institutions of any kind. In particular they have no legislature. Therefore in that society it would make no sense to say that someone had done something “illegal.” But neither would anything be “legal.” The entire set of legal categories would be inapplicable. In just this way I now view moral categories.
One interesting discovery has been that there are fewer practical differences between moralism and amoralism than might have been expected. It seems to me that what could broadly be called desire has been the moving force of humanity, no matter how we might have window-dressed it with moral talk. By desire I do not mean sexual craving, or even only selfish wanting. I use the term generally to refer to whatever motivates us, which ranges from selfishness to altruism and everything in between and at right angles. Mother Theresa was acting as much from desire as was the Marquis de Sade. But the sort of desire that now concerns me most is what we would want if we were absolutely convinced that there is no such thing as moral right and wrong. I think the most likely answer is: pretty much the same as what we want now.William: With all due respect, no offense intended, I feel your argument about primordial pre-law life is artificial. I can see you are a serious writer so I respect your efforts. Consider the behavior of various pack animals with an alpha leader. One clearly sees that there are some kind of rules and a "pecking order." Homer's Iliad and Odyssey do not seem to mention formal laws but obviously there is a notion of right and wrong and there are consequences to ones actions. I am certain one could find the same system of taboos among Australian aborigines or among Eskimos. I would have to study your writing at length but I feel you are setting out on the wrong track with your initial assumptions. The physical universe obeyed "laws" long before there were humans to observse such laws. I imagine the regularity of the seasons and the heavenly bodies and tides gave prehistoric humans a sense of order and regularity. To me it makes more sense to speak in terms of subjective laws or norms which change with time and changing circumstances. I want to read your post at length and give it some thought. Whenever I see people heading in this direction I have the impression that they are trying to escape from constraints and justify themselves. If we live on an island alone, there is no law or police, yet if we eat too much then we suffer the punishment of illness and pay a price which is only to say that our actions and inaction have consequences.
Karen:
One interesting discovery has been that there are fewer practical differences between moralism and amoralism than might have been expected. It seems to me that what could broadly be called desire has been the moving force of humanity, no matter how we might have window-dressed it with moral talk. By desire I do not mean sexual craving, or even only selfish wanting. I use the term generally to refer to whatever motivates us, which ranges from selfishness to altruism and everything in between and at right angles. Mother Theresa was acting as much from desire as was the Marquis de Sade. But the sort of desire that now concerns me most is what we would want if we were absolutely convinced that there is no such thing as moral right and wrong. I think the most likely answer is: pretty much the same as what we want now.William: With all due respect, no offense intended, I feel your argument about primordial pre-law life is artificial. I can see you are a serious writer so I respect your efforts. Consider the behavior of various pack animals with an alpha leader. One clearly sees that there are some kind of rules and a "pecking order." Homer's Iliad and Odyssey do not seem to mention formal laws but obviously there is a notion of right and wrong and there are consequences to ones actions. I am certain one could find the same system of taboos among Australian aborigines or among Eskimos. I would have to study your writing at length but I feel you are setting out on the wrong track with your initial assumptions. The physical universe obeyed "laws" long before there were humans to observse such laws. I imagine the regularity of the seasons and the heavenly bodies and tides gave prehistoric humans a sense of order and regularity. To me it makes more sense to speak in terms of subjective laws or norms which change with time and changing circumstances. I want to read your post at length and give it some thought. Whenever I see people heading in this direction I have the impression that they are trying to escape from constraints and justify themselves. If we live on an island alone, there is no law or police, yet if we eat too much then we suffer the punishment of illness and pay a price which is only to say that our actions and inaction have consequences.
