That doesn't mean much, but it may when you must decide what is the moral thing to do. It means that something which is .4996 moral and something else that is .5005 moral, will both round out to .500 moral. Even that doesn't mean much because we will all see what is moral differently than how others may see it, and we will each value morality differently when making decisions. For example, a narcissist will value morality less than they value ego and instant gratification. Even within the group categorized as narcissists, the value placed on morality will be weighted differently between members of the group.
It would be easy if all decisions were either a "0" or a "1". Even something so clear as "should I kill another person" would be weighed morally. It is not necessarily "I should" being "0" and "I should not" being "1". If it is done in self-defense or the defense of a defenseless person, the morality of the answer almost reverses itself, but perhaps not fully for some people. Perhaps it shifts to "I should" being ".745" and "I should not" going to ".255."
If we differentiate between it being self-defense and defense of someone else, the answer to "I should" is likely to rise to ".995," while killing someone in defense of another is likely to go down to ".500." If we add in the factor that the person being defended deserves what is happening to them, it likely would not affect those who are making the decision for self-defense, but it may swing our decision on killing in defense of another down so far that we would decide against it if given the choice.
However, we are far more often given choices in morality over things that are not happening in our sight than we are given life or death choices to make about things happening in front of us. Let's look at a moral choice made more than a decade ago, and something that has been consequential as a result of it.
The real estate bust of 2008 occurred because financiers were lending money to people who could not afford the payments, and they secured the loans with real estate that was valued to fit the loan and not to represent the value of the property. As the economy grew weak and unemployment rose, so did the defaults on these under-secured loans. Foreclosures followed by the tens of thousands. No one was redeeming their properties because they weren't worth what was owed on them in addition to not being able to afford the payments if the defaults were cleared.
The problem with homelessness grew as a result of the actions of the bankers who took advantage of the situation for their own personal benefit and regulators who didn't recognize the problem despite that consumer advocates did and warned others about it. Though relating problems this way can result in an "after this, therefore, because of this" error in reasoning, it seems self-evident that people losing their homes followed by a growing number of people without homes to live in, is more causal than coincidental.
Here is where America's moral compass went wrong: few people went to prison for causing the problem, and investors were compensated for their losses through a bailout program.
In my opinion, the moral action would have been to prosecute people who caused the problem and to have used the bailout money to help people who got duped into buying homes they couldn't afford by making up back payments and paying their loans down to the value of the property securing it.
Had we thrown the crooks in jail, it would have sent a warning to the crooks who continue to make money immorally that they aren't getting golden parachutes; they are getting prison time. The rich investors would have gotten the money back that they negotiated for, but the property owners would have had greater incentive to keep their homes. If more people had kept their homes, more people would have homes to live in. The bundled loans would be unbundled so that they could be treated as the people they represented instead of the numbers that were impersonal.
The rich got richer, and the poor got poorer, and it happened by bailing out the rich for stealing from the poor.
When given the moral option of helping those who need help and not helping those who need help, a number between ".001" and ".999" will register. The number will be different for different people and for different reasons. Whether the number matters at all will vary from person to person depending on how much they value morality.
It is one thing to say that we are moral, but the determination about how moral we are will be the result of what we do and not our claim that we are moral despite our decisions and actions. Nothing like morality is linear to us. It is in our sphere of influence and will change the balance within the spheres that are better examples than lines in understanding who we are.
Homelessness and poverty are not new. Neither is society's disdain for it such that Swift wrote A Modest Proposal and Anatole France was inspired to write so eloquently this:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
It is one thing to say that you agree with the morality of the rabble rousers who call out the immoral, but it is another to allow that to alter the balance in the sphere of our influences such that our actions prove our claims.
* * * * *
Related articles:
Seriously, How and Why Satire Works
Understanding Frames of Reference
Edge of Morality
Envisioning Infinity
No comments:
Post a Comment