The basis of morality - Part Two: Why do people do good things?

Part One of this mini-Morality series dealt with why people DON'T do BAD things. This part deals why people DO do GOOD things.

We've all heard of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." This is the Christian version of a basis of morality which is espoused by many other religions and philosophies. (Part One of this series could have been expressed as a new, Twisted Rule: "Do NOT do unto others as you WOULD NOT have them do unto you.") The spirit of the Golden Rule can be summed up thusly: "Act, but with empathy." The long version is: "Put yourself in the other person's shoes. Would you want to be the recipient of what you're dishing out? (or fail to receive what you are NOT dishing out?)"

The Golden Rule, however, could be self-serving. You do good, expecting some "payback". But if others could NOT "do (good) unto you", would you "do (good) unto them"? I will call this the Scorekeeper Rule, and will not go any further with it here. (There are also the two interpretations of the Golden Rule which are not in its true spirit: "Do nothing unto others, because you want to be left alone," and: "Be mean unto others because you are a masochist and want to be abused." I will not go any further with these mis-applications of the Golden Rule here.)

[Aside: There is also the Wiccan Rede: "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt." Using 21st Century American English, the Wiccan Rede is: "Do whatever you want to, as long as it doesn't harm anybody." This philosophy is also sometimes cited as another form of the Golden Rule, but it is not. The Golden Rule refers to human interaction, whereas the Wiccan Rede refers to personal liberties, and limits those liberties to things which don't harm anybody. I'm not sure if the Rede prohibits you from harming yourself...]

As in Part One, let's look at what motivates the atheist and the theist - this time to do good things. Can I make the argument that the atheist will do good because either (a) doing good is an integral part of his being endowed by evolution, or (b) failure to do good will result in permanent lockup? Similarly, is it logical that the theist will do good either because (a) doing good is an integral part of his being endowed by God, or (b) failure to do good will result in being sent to Hell to burn for all eternity?

The two (b) options for atheist and theist seem like poor motivation to do good. Why would society lock someone up for not doing good? Why would God condemn someone to an eternity of torment for failing to be nice? Option (a) seems rather weak, too. "Something just motivates me to be nice. I guess it's just part of my nature." It's probably just me and my attitude, but it seems like 'being non-mean' is more natural (or something more likely mandated by God) than 'being good'. What I'm trying to say is: it takes more effort TO DO good things than NOT TO DO bad things.

I recently spoke to a couple of people about this "basis of morality" thing and mentioned that "fear of punishment" seemed like a major reason to be good. But they both came back with, "It makes me feel good to make someone else feel good." Then I realized that there had to be two Parts to this mini-series. I was not distinguishing between "not doing bad" and "doing good". This feels strangely like a therapy session, where I've uncovered a suppressed way of acting - a way of acting which I thought was unnecessary. "People should appreciate it when I don't do bad things, right?" asks the left brain of RussKC. "That's not enough," replies RussKC's right brain, "because you cheat yourself of the satisfaction of crossing the boundary and doing actual good. Absence of 'bad' is not by default presence of 'good'." "But it takes an effort to 'act morally', that is, to not do bad things, right?" the confused left brain wants to know. "Wrong," asserts the right brain, "Most people consider it no effort at all to 'act morally', or to not do bad things, if that's how you want to define 'moral'." It seems left-brain RussKC wrote Part One of this series.

So who wins in this do-gooding contest? Who has more motivation to do good: the atheist or the theist? In this case the theist has more motivation, in my opinion. The atheist gains little in doing good, because it is purely a self-serving way of getting satisfaction in return. There is no really long-term payoff, because reality ends for an atheist at death. For the theist, on the other hand, being good can have self-serving results which last a lifetime, and on into an eternity in the afterlife. The theist can reap the results of doing good ... forever.

The basis of morality - Part One: Why don't people do bad things?

Many religious people - especially Christians - claim that their sense of morality is endowed by God. They have the belief that if a person does not believe in God, then that person has no fear of divine punishment, and will rape, murder, and steal. These are actually two points of view: a person could believe in God, yet still rape, murder, and steal. But when person recants, then he will feel the slate is wiped clean and divine punishment will not be meted out in the afterlife.

This brings up an important point. Those who believe in a "judging God" act morally either because (a) they think that they have been endowed with morality, making it an integral part of their being, or (b) they fear being punished in the afterlife for immoral behavior, so they are coerced into being moral.

What motivates those who do not believe in an afterlife - and, by extension, a God to punish them in an afterlife - to act morally? As above, there are those atheists who act morally either because (a) they believe morality comes to them naturally, making it an integral part of their being, or (b) they fear being punished by society, and so are coerced into being moral.

The atheists and the theists who fall into category (a) are the non-threatening members of society. Even though their beliefs in the origin of their morality differs, they both believe their moralities are integral parts of their being, as inseparable from their behavior as their heads are from their bodies.

It is the atheists and theists who fall into category (b) - those coerced into acting moral - which society needs to keep its eye on. Atheists in group (b) may at some point say, "Screw it ... I'm going to do what I want, when I want, to whom I want. There's no God to punish me, and once I'm dead there's no guilt I have to feel or lake of fire for me to burn in." The God-believers in group (b) may at some point say, "Screw it ... I'm going to do what I want, when I want, to whom I want. I'll just ask God for forgiveness later. Or, maybe it's God's will that I do what I want. Because I'm a Godly person, then by definition I cannot do what God doesn't want me to do."

Which of the category (b) - coerced to be moral - groups is more dangerous to society? In my opinion, it is the "Permission slip from God -or- Get out of Hell through forgiveness" theist group which is more dangerous. At least the atheist knows he is alone and the sole one responsible for his actions. He has his inner voice - his conscience - to argue with him about the social consequences of his actions. The theist, on the other hand, thinks he is acting in concert with, or with the tacit permission of, God. The theist is part of a gang engaging in group-think: "Since God has not struck me down, what I am doing has his approval." A dangerous basis of morality, indeed.

Coming next: Part 2 - Why do people do good things?

Hurricane Katrina - a tragedy unaddressed - one year later

Last year, most in America witnessed a tragedy. People living New Orleans were stranded by the waters of Lake Pontchartrain, which broke through the levees constructed to hold the lake at bay. These waters were transformed - by gasoline in submerged cars, oil from the same, and general grit and grime - into a toxic soup which was unsafe to drink, or even to walk in. People found themselves stranded, in a swamp they could neither drink nor traverse, on rooftops or in upper floors, 24 hours after the hurricane blew through.

Some say that these people should not have been there: they should have evacuated before the storm struck. I know I was one of many watching The Weather Channel, safe in the Midwest, five days before the storm made landfall, seeing that all the predictions had Katrina hitting New Orleans head-on. I didn't gather my belongings, board up my house, and find refuge at a relative's house in another State - I didn't have to. But even if I lived in New Orleans, I may have had the confidence that "nothing will happen to me" and have seen this as a great adventure and stayed put. On the other hand, if I were poor, had no car, and had a pet cat or dog, then I'd likely rationalize, "I can't afford a bus to get out, and they wouldn't let my dog on anyway".

The truth is, they DID dodge a bullet, at first. The storm passed, the streets were dry, the buildings were still standing, and things were looking good. Katrina had weakened from a Category 5 storm to a Category 3, and passed to the East - the "weak side" of the storm struck New Orleans. But the levees, their bases planted too shallow in poor soil, had been rocked back and forth by Pontchartrain's waters, and were undercut. Pontchartrain slowly infiltrated the lowest parts of the city, cutting people off in their homes. Some were drowned as the water rose and trapped them in their attics, and the invalid drowned in their beds. But this is not the tragedy I wish to address.

On the second day of the flooding, there were reports of looting and other civil unrest. Some people were getting the provisions they failed to stock up on from locked-up stores whose owners had evacuated. Others were taking advantage of the lack of security guards and police, and were looting or hoarding items for future resale. Pictures were taken of people raiding stores, and some captions read that these people were "taking provisions"; others were "looting". Some pointed out that an image with white people described them as provision-takers, whereas images with black people called them looters. These choices of words suggested a bias in the media, whether overt, covert, or coincidental. But this is also not the tragedy I speak of, but we're getting closer.

No, the tragedy I speak of is the incident, two days after the hurricane, where "a helicopter was fired upon by black men as it was engaged in the evacuation effort". This halted the rescue operation entirely. The reasoning, I recall, was "angry black men, probably going through withdrawl after two days without drugs, were trying to shoot down rescue helicopters because the helicopters were likely carrying morphine or other narcotics." This rationalization shut down the rescue operation for three days, until the next thing we saw - as far as rescue operations - were tank-like military vehicles rolling into the city.

Here is why I consider this a tragedy: the country and FEMA - the Federal Emergency Management Agency - put the brakes on the rescue operation because of the CLAIM that rescuers were being shot at by drug-starved black men. The men may have just been trying to get the attention of the helicopter so they could be rescued. Regardless, the rest of those in the flooded area - and those stranded on overpasses and in the Superdome and Convention Center - were forced to wait until the armored vehicles showed up. I envision this scenario:

Official #1: You're back without any evacuees. What's the problem?
Official #2: We were fired on by a group of angry black men as we were evacuating the hospital.
Official #1: They probably wanted your medication, or the hospital's. They're getting desperate already.
Official #2: What do we do?
Official #1: Pull all the rescue teams out. It's too dangerous in there.
Official #2: But what about the rest of the people? The hospitals?
Official #1: You know how those people get when they've been without their drugs. Everyone else is just going to have to wait until the big guns get here. They deserve it, anyway, not getting out, knowing they're in the path of a hurricane. They've made their decision: this is the way they want to live, so they're stuck with it.
Official #2: But sir, the children, the elderly, the women...
Official #1: There's nothing we can do. They've made their bed, now they have to sleep in it. It'll just be for a few days, until the military gets down there and puts a stop to all that crap.

My scenario continues: As rescue teams and independent volunteers showed up from across the country at the edge of the city, they were informed, "angry black men are shooting at rescuers, so you are not allowed to go in there." "I'll take my chances," some said. "I will not allow you to pass," came the reply from the "concerned" officials. But I suspect - and this just boils my blood - that many of those helpers, when told they could not help because of the danger posed by "angry black men", simply said, "Oh, OK", as if they were told, "venomous alligators and ravenous lions are roaming the streets, so we're looking out for your safety, and won't let you go in there".

My scenario concludes: Finding themselves stranded on bridges, some tried to walk to nearby towns, but were stopped by those towns' police forces. Those police were charged with keeping "them" from entering the neighboring communities and stealing drugs from their pharmacies and looting their stores. "They can stay on the overpass for a few days," the suburbanites decided. "Soon help will be on the way. Why didn't they get out while they had a chance, before the storm? They certainly aren't going to pull any of that crap in MY town."

This is a tragedy because of the undertone of racism few whites want to address: "angry black men" were causing trouble in a city suddenly populated almost exclusively by blacks (because they were the poorest of the poor and could not leave), and everyone was labeled a trouble-maker, a looter, a person who easily reverted to sub-human, animal behavior. "They deserved their fate," is the unspoken concensus. "If they behaved like civilized people, they would have been given help. But no, they behaved like the animals they are. It'll probably happen the same way the next time. Well, next time they will have to rely more on their own State and local governments to help them out. The 'State and local' governments can't rely on the U.S. government to clean up the mess caused by 'their' people."

"State and local". Now whose war cry has "State and local" been since Katrina? Oh yes, the Right-Wing pundits and Bush Administration apologists. And they, by and large, are very rich ... and very white.