The Science God

Alexander, the Great (credit: Wikimedia Commons)

What If Everyone Thought That Way?

What if everyone thought that way? Large numbers of ordinary people who have studied no Philosophy still have clear ideas about right and wrong. They have guidelines that they live by and that they consult when they have to make a moral decision in a situation that is unfamiliar to them. If they get into an argument about an action a friend is considering, and he starts to give reasons for his actions that seem selfish or short-sighted, they ask: “What if everyone thought that way?”

In other words, it turns out that even the most ordinary of people give deeply considered answers – philosophical ones – for their actions. They thereby reveal that they are aware of moral dilemmas, and that they have their own ways of testing the “rightness” of their thoughts and actions.

“What if everyone thought that way?” is a profoundly philosophical question that comes from Immanuel Kant, one of the giants of Western Philosophy. Kant said that to be moral, we must act as if we would be willing to see the principle behind our actions become a law of the universe. To be moral, you should be able to “universalize” the principle behind every one of your actions. “What if everyone thought that way?” is really only saying in more ordinary language what Kant says more formally.

Immanuel Kant (credit: Wikimedia Commons)

In a moral argument about whether some action or spoken remark is morally right, people who say things like, “And how many people will this plan of yours benefit?” or “Yeah, but how much real good will this plan of yours do for real people on the ground?” are utilitarians. They consider actions to be more and more right the more good they do and the greater the numbers of people they do that good for. The greatest good of the greatest number. That’s utilitarianism.

There are even people who will ask of a person with whom they are having a debate about moral issues, “Where was your compassion that day?” or “Where was your sense of responsibility?” or “What’s the matter? No courage, Joe?” These people are leaning toward virtue ethics, the way of thinking about right and wrong that was recommended by Aristotle over two thousand years ago.

Aristotle (credit: Wikimedia Commons)

And some will consider every act down to its smallest details in terms of whether it will harm or benefit the ecosystems of this earth. These are getting their ethics from environmentalism, which is a real moral philosophy in our own times.

So what point am I trying to make here? Just that ordinary folk really are guided by the belief systems of their moral leaders. And it’s worth mentioning here that there are still many who ask themselves every day, “What would Jesus do?”.

And Alexander the Great travelled for years with a copy of the “Iliad”, the Ancient Greek epic about the hero Achilles and his exploits during the Trojan War, by his bed, and he read it every night. It was his guide for how a real man should live life.

The thoughts of philosophers and writers do matter to ordinary folk. The heavy thoughts of the great thinkers do filter down, over time, to the grass roots level.

Which brings me again to the matter of postmodernism. All of the moral guides and philosophers mentioned above have flaws in them, and counter-examples can be thought of which show up these flaws. But at least they are something. They gave, and still give, their followers some guidance as they make choices.

Postmodernism and its offspring, moral relativism, offer nothing. In fact, they emphatically assert that there is not, and cannot be, anything true or real in the way of moral principles to offer. All moral “principles” are just opinions. No moral code means anything against the backdrop of the complicated, real world.

But wouldn’t this moral relativism – if all of the people of the world believed it – lead to a world at peace? Live and let live? You tend to your business, I’ll tend to mine?

Absolutely not. History tells us, absolutely not. Why? Because a few bullies who are really driven by mad goals of their own, would take over whole nations and then whole areas of the world. A paralyzed population like the one described above – a moral relativist, postmodernist population – would not have any way to defend itself against the propaganda in the press and the thugs on the streets who follow the lies of the bully leader. And when they come, when they see the opening, do those bullies come hard! Consider the bullies of the last century. And they hate democracy. It’s for weaklings, as far as they are concerned.

When no one with thoughtful, rational answers for ordinary people’s questions is around anymore, then the bullies and their thugs and propaganda have room to step into the hearts of ordinary folk. And step in they will. I guarantee it.

Does any of this scenario sound like our times? Still wonder why I say we need a universal moral code?