De Conscientia

This was written without any assumptions of religion.  It turned out to be (though it by no means began as) a record of me questioning the idea that humans have a congenital conscience, an idea which I've come to question as of late.  I'm still not sure what I think.  I've reached a conclusion if religion is removed from the picture, but (for me), it isn't, so I suppose I'll have to look more closely at Christian philosophy and doctrine to have an educated answer.

A few days ago, I was hanging out in Ann Arbor with a few friends.  Whilst we perused the shelves of a used book store, one friend was talking loudly and incessantly to the other one.  This bugged me because it seemed to me like it was s situation where one should be quiet.  Not necessarily like a library, where it's a rule, but the atmosphere of the place, not to mention common courtesy for other readers, made it seem like a place where one should whisper.  It made me uncomfortable.  When I brought this up with the friend, I was blown off.  Obviously this person didn't think that it was such a bad thing.  So was I just being overly prudish, or was the friend being rude?

Neither of us believed that we were wrong.  That is to say, two diametrically opposed viewpoints were fully and truly believed to be correct. I suppose it's because we were raised differently.  Culture differences and so on.  So, if you're taking the larger view, neither of us was right or wrong in the classic sense of the word.  I was right in my own mind, though the friend thought I was wrong.  I suppose that this is cultural relativism.

How should such a dispute be decided?  Sure, this was a minor thing.  But even about this, we were utterly incapable of comprehending the other's position on anything but an intellectual level.  How much worse would it be for a tribe whose ancient rituals involve cannibalism, and the more urbane government who is trying to stop them?  The two parties are incapable of coming to an agreement without destroying an essential part of who they are (read Peter Shaffer's Equus for more on this tack).  The tribe would obviously lose its cultural identity if it gave in and stopped the ritual, and the government would violate its own laws (assuming that murder is illegal in this hypothetical government) if it allowed the ritual to continue.  So which one is right?

Having reached this seemingly impassable quagmire, we might have to backtrack, to see if an incorrect assumption was made.  We have two groups, one which considers and action wrong, and one which considers the same thing to be right.  We don't want to say that one group should automatically be granted sovereignty over the other because of its advanced technology or size, because that would be blind imperialism.  Similarly, we don't want to allow a small group to be an exception to the law of the land, because doing so makes the law useless.  Perhaps the government should grant the tribe its own sovereign nation?  Yes, the government washes its hands of the whole thing, and allows the tribe to continue its cannibalism.  Everyone is happy.

Except for the people getting eaten.  OK, this is just ridiculous.  I cannot be convinced that there is not an absolute set of morals.  Maybe certain things, such as talking loudly in a bookstore, are relative and not governed by morality, but murder is.  Or it should be.  But maybe not?  Sure, we can talk about "basic human rights," such as a right to live, but these are all artificial constructions.  "Rights" are granted by other people, not by nature (does the ocean that you're drowning in let you miraculously float to shore because it's your right to live?  (See Starship Troopers for more on this.)).  So there is no naturally granted set of rights that a human is granted by virtue of his or her existence.  [Maybe this is where animal rights come in - they're granted the same artificially constructed rights that we are? --ed]

But everyone talks about rights.  Are they just misguided?  No, I don't think so.  We may be ignoring any divinely or naturally inspired morality that may exist, but morality can stem from logic.  Using the continuation and increased prosperity of humanity (or even of the individual) as a goal, and taking a wide enough look at the situation, a system of morality that is very similar to religion-based morality emerges.  [Does this help or hinder the case of religion?  Is it proof that religion evolved as a way to continue the human race, and has no actual supernaturality to it?  Or is it proof that religion is divinely inspired, because some primitive people got it, while others didn't? --ed]  But there are some tribes that just don't get it, at least not fully.  They still practice ritual sacrifice, violating both logical morals and the morality of various religions (though not their own...).  Hell, there are plenty of murders and other moral wrongs in our own society.  Why?  If morality can be found logically, why has it not fully taken over?

Perhaps because human beings are inherently evil?  Or maybe the logic isn't as obvious to some as it is to others.  If one doesn't step back and look at the big picture, then the logic means nothing.  Working for short-term gains, without taking in to account the necessary long-term consequences is bound to lead people to justify immoral acts.  And perhaps this is the definition of evil.  If it is, then yes, human beings are inherently evil, because no one looks at the big picture if they are not taught to do so early in their formative years.  (Dogville is especially interesting to watch with this in mind.)

I suppose this is where it all meets.  Humans have no in-born moral compass.  At least, none that I can imagine without religion.  The little voice that we call our conscience is just a vocalization of the cultural norms with which we were raised.  We have nothing guiding our actions, nothing upholding our rights, nothing maintaining morality [nothing stopping us from talking loudly in a bookstore --ed.] except for the critical logic, open minds, and foresight of humanity.  May God have mercy on our souls.