2.3 The notion of moral

In everyday language, the two terms ethics and morals are usually used synonymously and are not scrutinised further. They are often linked with paternalism. This is because moral statements are often associated to commandments or prohibitions. Its visible symbol is the raised index finger. It may reprimand one as well as show one the supposedly correct path from the perspective of its holder. But it is not that simple. Ethics and morality do not have to be associated with paternalism per se, nor are they identical notions. Test

Morality can be understood as a system of values that is actually practised in a community. It is a system of order that reflects the values and meaning of a community of practice. In such a community, certain patterns of behaviour have developed over time that claim validity for the members of this very community. This means that the members of such a community have expectations towards the actions of its members and are expected to fulfil these expectations themselves. A moral action is therefore an action that follows the rules of the prevailing morality of the group.

Moral actions follow rules to which the members of a community of values submit. The actions and their results are recognised via social mechanisms. If a person has acted well and correctly in the sense of the moral community, they receive appreciation and praise. If, on the other hand, they have violated the applicable moral standards, they will be disrespected and reprimanded and socially ostracised.

Example

A mining company explores a new raw material deposit in a remote region and begins mining after obtaining the necessary authorization and finishing the exploration of the deposit. The operation gives the region an economic boost and expands its infrastructure. At the same time, the extraction of raw materials changes the landscape and endangers the environment and the population’s livelihood. As a result, one group could see the company as a positive promoter of the region and the indigenous people. In contrast, another group could call it an irresponsible destroyer of the environment and indigenous culture.

Exercise

 Task 2.1: Moral judgments (transfer task)

Research a raw material extraction project:

• Describe the influence of the operation in your own words.
• Analyse the project for reactions (comments, discussions, etc.) in which moral judgements are expressed. Specify the reactions.
• Are the judgements consistent? Can you identify different values? Can you identify whether the (different) judgements) come from different communities?
• How do you assess the impact of the mining operation? Why do you assess it this way?

Time to complete approx. 75 min.

Communities have morals. And morals can differ from community to community. We can see that there is not just one morality, but many morals. Some morals will be reconcilable and compatible with each other, while others may be contradictory or even incompatible. The mining example just outlined already points to these possible tensions.

in depth

From: Manstetten (2005) Ma05, p. 97-99, authors‘ translation Original Quote

Individualism and fundamentalism: Variants of a morality without reasons

The impression that ethics leads to arbitrary results despite all the efforts of the reasoning and critically examining mind can support the view that the goal of establishing an appropriate morality and thus a just life is impossible to achieve. This view is reflected in certain tendencies of the Zeitgeist. I would like to highlight two of these, which only appear contradictory at first glance.

1. Many people take the view that everyone should decide for themselves which moral concepts they want to adopt. What is good and just, they say, is something different for everyone. Reasons for this are neither possible nor necessary. It follows that every individual could claim, without encountering serious contradiction: "What is good and just is so because I think it is good and just." We can characterise this as an individualistic understanding of morality.
2. Increasingly, people, not only in Islamic countries but also in the USA and Europe, are adopting a certain, usually rigid morality that they attribute to their respective religion, such as Christianity, Judaism or Islam. They do not want to justify this morality. This is because they claim to be certain from the outset that this very morality and no other is laid down in their religion or in the holy scriptures of this religion and is therefore the right one. Even if other readers of these writings deduce a different understanding of morality from this, they are not moved by it. This can be described as a fundamentalist understanding of morality.

Individualist and fundamentalist morality claim that reflection on morality is neither necessary nor possible. However, they run into the same structural difficulties: What happens in the case of conflict between contradictory ideas of morality?

Consider individualism: each individual may have their own morality as long as it is only about their own life and no one else is affected by the actions of that individual. But when people live, act and share with each other in a marriage, a family, an association, a company or a state, they have to agree on certain moral principles. If not there will be no long-term interaction between them or else the interactions between them will end in conflict and war. Individualistic morality only works as long as either the individuals live only for themselves or as long as they - coincidentally - only interact with people who adhere to the same morals as they do.

It is apparently different with fundamentalists: they claim to represent a morality that applies to all people. However, this only works if only fundamentalists of one and the same ideology engage with each other. But what do they do when they meet people who do not follow this morality - such as fundamentalists with a different morality? Seen in this light, their ethical problem is structurally not different from that of the individualists.

However, while individualists could recognise the problem with their individualistic moral justification in the event of a conflict, fundamentalists tend to be blind for that: since they are right anyway, the others must be wrong. However, it makes a big difference whether fundamentalists are somehow able to tolerate the presence of these others or whether they are convinced that everyone who does not share their own understanding of morality must be fought, suppressed or even killed. In any case, the moral concepts of others do not count, they are always morally superior to them.

Despite all the criticism of individualism and fundamentalism - both positions can certainly take on seductive traits. Everyone can do what they want - this is a utopia that has its roots deep in the foundations of modern societies and corresponds to many people's attitude to life. However, this attitude to life can easily turn into a different attitude to life: i.e. that the lifestyles and living conditions of many people in these societies are something different. This attitude to life can ultimately become inscribed in the character of these people and cause depression and despair. Those who experience the modern attitude to life in this way may find fundamentalism attractive. This is insofar as it provides a supposedly indestructible foothold: All doubting and questioning is obsolete. The desire for radical self-determination and the longing for a secure foothold beyond one's own self - both can even be found in one person.

When differentiating between different morals, it is a challenge to determine what constitutes the actual community that is being talked about. One might often make reference to cultural similarities and differences. After all, it is very much cultural moulding and socialisation that provide people with the values which guide them. In most everyday situations, it is not even necessary to go to principle moral commandments as "Thou shalt not kill" or to discuss whether the death penalty is morally right or wrong in certain cases.

We are certainly all familiar with examples where we have put our foot in our mouth in encounters with people from other cultures. We can become particularly aware of violating moral rules when travelling: The often unquestioned patterns of behaviour practised at home might be punished in the host country with a wrinkled nose or even more severe consequences.

Example

Think of hugging or flirting in public, for example, or the permissive topless and nude bathing behaviour you may be used to on the German Baltic coast, which can cause a moral uproar on beaches in foreign countries.

It is obvious that different groups only share the prevailing moral concepts to a greater or lesser extent. Especially in diverse and pluralistic societies, such as the German, South African or US-American society, one can assume that there are many different groups with specific group morals that have differentiated themselves over time. To ensure that these morals are not implacably hostile to each other, a certain tolerance is required, especially in the public sphere. And it needs a discursive agreement based on "principles whose recognition can be rationally understood and therefore expected of everyone" [Pi17, p. 12]. Nevertheless, even in such liberal societies, there are still serious offences against decency and morality. They can be described as a violation of a taboo in everyday language [cf. Pi17, p. 30].

in depth

From: Pieper (2017), pp 31-32 [Pi17], authors‘ translation Original Quote

Taboo

In everyday life, the violation of a taboo is considered a particularly serious moral offence against decency and custom. In the past it was mainly the religious and sexual sphere in which certain areas (of the sacred, the numinous, or certain erotic varieties) were marginalised, declared inaccessible ("untouchable") and prohibited for human practice. This was through prohibitions under the threat of severe penalties. Instead today everyone's individual private and intimate sphere is considered taboo. Despite the public's curiosity, both the excessive display of this personal sphere by well-known personalities and outrageous encroachments by the mass media are generally perceived as a shameless, indecent intrusion into matters that are none of the public's business.

With all taboos, it must always be asked to what extent they still serve to protect real values such as human dignity and personal freedom. Or whether they have not degenerated into mere means of pressure to restrict unpopular behaviour and extend control functions beyond what is permitted. Taboos can become obsolete and be lifted if it turns out that people have now found a more natural or enlightened approach to the originally tabooed area. Then the old prohibitions become obsolete or require modification. Examples include the changed judgement of incest and homosexuality.

Exercise

 Task 2.2: Terms (reflection exercise)

Would you say that mining forms a community of practice whose members share common values and a common purpose? If so, which ones? Do you know any taboos that you assume the members of the mining community (more or less) share? What are they? What are the reasons for these taboos?

Time to complete approx. 15 min.