Ethics - moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity. Morals - concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour and the goodness or badness of human character.
Right or wrong, behaviour and activity. Action. Good and bad. Easy to define these words, but when you bring this lens up to a person's life, what do you see? Do we even know what it is? or do we conclude that because I say it and I believe it, this makes it so? Is it relative or is there something more to it? Is it grounded in something external to humanity? Or am I free to define it as I see fit?
I had a bit of a discussion with a colleague today - people have a career, a job. And you'd expect them to live the truth of that. Live the moral correctness expected from that ... and yet so often, that's not what happens. How often, when I taught, did I see some form of 'cheating' where people turned away? or a bully and all an authority witness does is waggle the finger at Jonny and say, "You know better; don't do that again" and Jonny laughs inside at this stupid teacher. Or the social worker who came to visit my brother with a preset belief that he was the 'bad guy' and the children had to be rescued from this monster? Or the lawyer who defends the perpetrator and twists it to be not about how he abused the girl but about how he is the victim because he's black and everyone attacks black men? I could look around and without throwing a stone too far hit something again where we shake our heads.
Somewhere in the recent past, something shifted. I don't want to blame it on the demise of belief but I can't think of where else it might have come from. As I ponder this, and things I have recently come across, it might actually be a sign of our times. A trait of our age. The Age of Postmodernism. This is defined as a period in time, in the late 20th century that has at its heart a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as well as a problematic relationship with any notion of 'art'. It's about a deconstructionist view and the removal of labels, of hierarchy. Almost of anything that gave form to previous eras.
I think what this might have done is white-wash everything to a grey of mediocrity. It is no longer acceptable to point out differences or to use labels to separate. We are in such a world of social equality (that is only for 'my' group), where each has their own 'truth' so long as yours does not impose upon mine and don't you dare offend me! But I can offend and attack and belittle you all I want.
And that's where the absence of ethics comes in ... I think ethics have become what we want them to be. I am 'right' and therefore what I deem as right is right. We are all 'right' in our way, provided there is no contradiction to me. We have become so sensitive to what is around us that it seems we have reduced ourselves to all be the same because no one stands out or stands up anymore. And that means, we no longer have heroes - because heroes are those who point us to a higher way of being ... and because we are now 'post-modern', there is no longer a 'higher way of being' because everyone is equal. A strange type of socialism!
I've heard talk of 'tribalism' - we are all fracturing into our own little groups - the 'Me, too" movement and supporters, the "Black Lives Matter", the Indigenous people, into various gender groups ... what's the term now - gender identity vs gender expression, and there are a plethora of terms under there to match yourself with ... but don't get too close to that label because everything is fluid. and I'm sure there are countless other terms for groups out there - racial, sexual, beliefs, etc. I truly think that the more we pull apart and create these distinctions in a world that claims to have none, the more we are messing up who we are and who we were created to be. I'm not saying I am against any of these groups; I'm saying that when the group becomes the defining thing, then I believe we are headed to places we don't want to go.
I mean, if I am asked 'who are you?', I don't think I'd ever start by listing the labels under which you'd find me. Does that mean I'm postmodern? Or does it mean that I aspire to be more than what a label can give to understanding who I am? Because in a way, I do believe in pushing ourselves out of the norm, away from the masses, while at the same time remaining connected and compassionate to all. Why can we not all aspire to become more than we are? Why do we have to be comfortable in our complacency and meet the status quo?
There's something also about regulating the external to bring all to a point of equality, and in that regulation, we end up forcing all to become complicit to a form of dictatorship where what we say and what we do have 'bookends' and all is controlled. It's sounding more and more like we are living in a world that is beginning to resemble what once was only found in science fiction dystopian novels.
I heard a speaker recently - he said that 'to think is to risk being offended." He might have something there. And then ... watch out. Because I think ethics are passé, especially if 'your' ethics are different or contradict 'mine'. Then what happens?
No comments:
Post a Comment