Lower Case or Upper Case Morality

In his article, “The moral naturalists” (explanations for lower case letters to come), David Brooks points to research that points to a sense of right and wrong that we are born with and learn very early. Even “lower” animals such as rats and monkeys learn to cooperate. It seems that we have “natural receptors that help us recognize fairness and cruelty,” and we show preferences for goodness and fairness from infancy. Social norms, evidently, “fall upon prepared ground. We come equipped to learn fairness and other virtues.” Those who behave morally seem to do it because they are “more sensitive to other people’s points of view” and better at “anticipating and reading other people’s pain.” What researchers seem to be identifying as a moral sense is one that values such virtues as cohesion, cooperation, and empathy. However, Brooks complains that researchers’ perspective on morality seems to be “lower case” and that it might not satisfy “those who want their morality to be awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great.”

I find myself asking the following questions in response: If morality is inborn and starts so early, what happens along the way that people let go of it and allow themselves to choose such immoral behaviors? What do we have to do to encourage people to continue caring about the group, about other people’s pain, about respect and empathy and responsibility and courage (those lower case virtues)? Why are we seeing so many fall from grace? Fall from honesty and integrity? Right into our prisons. When will people understand that a lack of trust is the greatest risk to our society, to our psychological wellness, to our safety, and to our financial well being?

Personally, it is the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” that motivates me. Without a powerful faith, my fears would overwhelm me and persuade me to take the easy, safe, and perhaps less than honest or kind path. That faith keeps me moving along the path toward greater character, remedying my faults, and striving for what’s optimal (believing that it is only possible with help from Beyond). Many of the people that I collaborate with on character issues also find their motivation in the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great.” So I ask the question – must we have “the awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” to move us out of our moral depravity? Does it take something grand and holy to persuade us, to enable us to live differently?

If so, then the approach I have been using in the Eriksen Institute for Ethics is likely to fail. That is, I figured, given the clear relationships between our economic recession and the unethical behavior of mortgage and financial institutions, and given the clear relationships between long term profitability and developing an organizational culture centered on aspirational values, that businesses and other organizations would be hopping right in line to fully infuse aspirational values from top to bottom. I figured that because of the clear ethical needs in our society, we could, without calling on the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great,” feel justified in advocating for business ethics. We could justify our demands or expectations that businesses and corporations live according to a basic set of aspirational values without having a discussion of religion or faith or. . . you get my drift.

And yet, we seem to be a people who respond to crisis. We seem to need it to break through our inertia. If Haiti and the Gulf oil spill and a war in the middle east and an economic crisis can’t get organizations to put values first, then perhaps we really do need the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” to empower our efforts. However, I personally have found that when I daily think the “lower case” morality, how to be more loving or kind or trusting or responsible, I feel less defensive and more willing to grow and work on myself. I believe that, despite a life time of the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great,” I am a better person from having, for a few short years, invested in “lower case” morality. Do we need to require people to take the larger plunge into the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great?” Or might they be more willing to begin with the smaller steps, with the “lower case?”

From Science to Humanity

Isn’t it interesting that in these days of doing with less, we seem to be reevaluating what really matters? Isn’t it amazing that at a time when we wonder if we will have houses to live in, or when the next paycheck will arrive, we are giving more to those in need? It seems that, in response to the unethical, and, in some cases, outright illegal behavior of our leaders, we are focusing more on ethics, on doing the right thing, on how our society has declined morally, and on what’s needed to turn things around. We seem to be emphasizing community more, and in doing so, emulating our European and Latino neighbors -- that is, relatives and friends are moving in together. Children are living at home for longer. Bartering is seen more frequently.

But perhaps the greatest shock is that the field to which we attribute the greatest fault in this financial crisis – economics – is, according to David Brooks of the New York Times, retreating from its rational, scientific base, and “taking baby steps into the world of emotion, social relationships, imagination, love and virtue.” The old notion that economics and business and such are about making as much money as possible by any means possible, the commitment to putting the almighty dollar first, above all else, may actually be dying a slow death. As Brooks points out, Adam Smith was a moral philosopher. Keynes saw economics as a moral science, dealing with “motives, expectations, psychological uncertainties.” So much for taking the emotion and humanity out of the economic world!

Of course, those in the religious, spiritual, and psychological worlds have always advocated for keeping humanity and spirituality in our daily life and workings. Anyone who has participated in a spiritual or religious community has at least heard about virtue and “the good” and optimal ways to live life -- usually life with God or life empowered by God. Of course, people in these communities reflect on these words or live them out to different degrees. In some of these communities, sin or hell or lack of God is emphasized as a means of getting people to choose something better.

In the psychological or mental health world, virtue or the development of mental health is rarely the focus – although “wellness” in the counseling field and “positive psychology” in psychology are currently getting more airtime. Instead, people who involve themselves with mental health professionals are usually motivated to get help or to “fix” something in their lives by emotional pain or relationship struggle. And mental health professionals themselves are, for the most part, also primarily focused on reducing pain and struggle – after all, insurance companies don’t pay for developing joy or gratitude or other virtues. Occasionally, in this world, people pursue or offer parenting groups or some form of positive mental health education in order to promote life skills or to get better in doing life or relationships.

But it seems that most of the time we are motivated by pain or crises or “fires” that need to be put out. Is that all that is happening now? Are the observations listed above reflective of true transformation or will we merely resume our lives of “automaticity” once the financial crisis is over? Will we use the crisis as the impetus to shift to a whole new way of viewing the world and our society? Or will we return to plugging away at whatever is in front of us, believing the “money first” aspirations of our boss or business colleagues? Will we rise to the challenge and become more reflective and intentional about the way we live our lives, more aware of the larger, longer term picture, more concerned with how we can live together in peace, ensure that everyone has enough, and preserve our environment for our children and grandchildren? Or not – it seems that there is a fork in the road before us. Will we take “the one less traveled on?”