So, the argument ends, and there is little left to do but face the music. What are you going to do then?
If we had to choose between what was good for us and what was desirable, how many of us would be sensible? Of course, it all depends upon what is ‘good’ and what is ‘desirable’. The lucky man or woman who has both does not have to make a choice. But such rarities seldom make themselves available. The rest of us must muddle through until a happy medium, or death, is reached – the unlucky amongst us may unhappily reach both at the same time.
Tough choices require more than a modicum of sweat. How can anything important that is not instinctual be decided upon by the toss of a coin? There are some that perform these tricks as a show of bravura, but such histrionics deserve their place in the outlandish dialogues of Russian fiction writers such as Dostoyevsky, whose protagonists try to out-do each other in order to prove a point. The rest of us mere mortals merely shrug a bit, and then opt one way or another based on how we may be feeling at the time. And that’s the problem.
Our feelings, like the weather, can change with the hour. And our forecasts can depend upon which window we look through at the time. What makes us unhappy one day will fill our hearts with comfort the next. Many have therefore considered rules of conduct to be essential in the governance of society. After all, we can’t really adopt relative moralism –whereby he does his thing and I do mine– or there’d be pandemonium as muggers and rapists apply for licence to plead their cases based on 'human nature'.
But perhaps, in effect, we are all relative moralists at heart. I may want things I cannot have, but for me taking them without payment goes beyond my moral make-up. Just me! But I cannot reason for others, even with the endorsement of laws, because I cannot recognise every situation under heaven. In this way, even if I am feeling benevolent or vindictive, and as long as the case before me is pleaded well, then the law will dictate the proper sentence for un-sociable behaviour.
Should we circumvent our emotions, then, and apply for the law in all cases? Certainly, if that was the sort of life considered necessary for harmony. One rule could therefore apply to all, and we would be thoroughly justified in our responses because of the necessity for compliance. And in so doing, respect for personal freedoms would be withdrawn and we would have entered an emotional and legal totalitarianism.
So what’s to do? We are caught between the need for what we should do (and what is required of us), and the need for individual determination. Can we be in both places?
Unfortunately, the answer is really, “It all depends”. It depends upon what it is: for some religious and bigoted types, the idea of homosexuality is abhorrent and would therefore cross the boundaries of what is acceptable in society. For others, the adding of spoonfuls of sugar to a child’s morning cereal would constitute a gut-wrenching dilemma. Both very much depend upon the moral compasses of the moralist, never mind the protagonists. Can anyone ‘feel’ his or her way out of it? Of course, but that depends upon what is considered truly right. And for that, we take advice from experts in such matters, such as university professors of ethics, judges, members of the clergy and so on.
So, to re-cap, we each have dilemmas about what is ‘desirable’ and what is ‘good’ for us. Some of us brass it out, but many of us test our feelings about what to do. But those feelings flop about with the seasons, and very much depend upon our perspectives. And if we leave it all to our perspectives, then we become relativists (or tyrants). For some this is intolerable and law then becomes the arbiter of behaviour and the end of that road is rather unpleasant, as any inhabitant of a totalitarian regime will gladly elucidate. Can we therefore split our morality between the Kantian ideals of moral obligation and conformity and absolute individual freedom? Perhaps that depends upon quite what it is that is being decided, whether anyone has expert opinion on the matter – and whether anyone wants to listen!
Making hard decisions very much depends upon what is being decided. Deciding on a pair of jeans may be relatively inconsequential, but those decisions that rest in the heart can be overwhelming. Nevertheless, resolution is essential. To leave such matters open is asking for trouble; decisions must be decided! And neither is it vital to make reactionary decisions; we all have PhDs in hindsight. Eventually, these decisions must be made and the music faced.
So, if you’re looking for sagacity, then you’re reading the wrong blog. We share the same human nature. I’m afraid you just have to get on with it! Any more advice would only cloud the matter, and only help in making the wrong decision.
Comments