Permissive Morality, Amorality and Evil

Several weeks ago somebody in some cheesy disreputable Forum, I forget exactly where, accused me of having no morals. Odd, I thought, as most of my essays make quite a point of defending some moral point or another, or at least are involved with defending the causes of Religion and Civilization, which is almost as good as being moral. But I decided it was time to write an essay about Moral Distinctions, as it seems some people could probably use the education.

Well, first we must admit that Morality does have its philosophical problems. For instance, there is the argument I make with Atheists, that if one rejects God because Science can’t demonstrate any God, then it is more or less inevitable that Morality will suffer the same Fate. If one must wait upon Science and Philosophy before one decides to be Moral, then Self Interest and Self Indulgence are likely to take a very long head-start.

Yes, yes, Atheists endlessly point to people, who had become Atheists only yesterday, and insist that they are behaving morally – that it is their “Natural Condition”. However, it is more likely the case that people who behave morally are doing so in respect to customs and traditions of Morality. The best example here is Western Culture, which used to be Catholic Civilization. Civilization had been moralized from top to bottom, not only laying out models of moral behavior but also addressing much of the necessary underlying moral assumptions and moral premises – placing others before Self, Social Importance before Self Importance, and the whole sense of Spiritual Ideals being transcendent over gross materiality, etc. Just deciding one day that one does not believe in God, well, all the Moral Conditioning of the Religion and Civilization still remain…. For awhile anyway.

Really, if the Atheist really wants to prove his point regarding a Natural Morality, he would need to refer to the Primitives and the Barbarians, and demonstrate all their Natural Goodness. Yes, they can show us a Mother’s Love, which is fairly universal, but after that, it all goes downhill fast in the search for Natural Goodness. Remember how I am constantly dwelling on the point that Dense Populations seek out Civilized Institutions, while sparse Populations remain the most chaotic and violent. Well, this is what we see with Primitive Peoples and Barbarians. As Societies develop a better sense of Cooperation and Sociability, then their numbers are able to float upward. But Chaotic and Violent Societies will automatically keep their own numbers low. I once read an article about Primitive Culture, one particularly violent Tribe. They had no sense at all for any of our kind of Morality. Mostly they praised Bravery in Battle. While they could speak of Loyalty as a virtue, it was offset by a larger respect for any cunning, strength or cleverness that could forgo Loyalty and attain to a more Alpha-Dominant Position in the Tribe. Mercy toward enemies was entirely ruled out as showing weakness. Oh, and one had to never appear weak before the Women… or they would stop doing what they were told to do. These were not nice people.

Oh, what fools many Anthropologists into believing in some kind of a Universal Goodness is that Primitive Peoples can be so hospitable to strangers. However, this is a well adapted cultural survival mechanism. This is how it works. When one group of Barbarians overruns another group of Barbarians, there is not necessarily a Fight. Often it is enough to show Superior Strength of Numbers. Well, who has Superior Strength of Numbers? It becomes necessary for the Tribes to carefully look each other over. This is done through Hospitality – there are feasts and celebrations and everybody counts heads and looks to see how big and strong the big and strong ones are over on the other side. If it is too close to call, then Manhood, Courage and Bravery gets involved and there is a Battle. But more often than not, if the Hospitable Tribe also happens to be the obviously Smaller and Weaker Tribe, then it will suddenly be reminded of plans it had all along to head West or South to some newer and prettier Valley. They will pull up stakes and leave, allowing their Guests to move into their old haunts. And if they are lucky then they themselves will prove to be the Bigger Stronger Tribe down the trail and force some other Poor Barbarian People to go on the move in their turn. But if they are always the Smaller and Weaker Tribe, then they will always be the ones to keep going.

One can see the important role that Numbers play here. Bigger Tribes are better able to keep their place, or take preferred places if they should go on the move. This is how Barbarism grows toward Civilization. Larger Tribes can only become larger by adapting to behaviors of Cooperation. For instance, perhaps the most significant improvement was the substitution of Games for Mortal Combats in deciding Group Dominance. In the most Primitive Societies, the Alpha Males would outright kill their rivals, or chase them off into Exile. The Tribe, while having a strong leader, would be weaker in not having so many Second Best Males around to add to the Security Picture. But in the more advanced Societies, the Young Males were allowed to play Games, sort of mock-combats – almost lethal but not quite… like modern Football. By adulthood everybody more or less knew who the Accepted Alpha would be – The Team Caption, and everybody would fall in line behind him. The Older Alphas would bestow honors on the Younger Alphas and marry daughters off to them… all to assure a few more years of their own survival, where in a more Primitive Society, the Younger and Stronger would only have needed to kill off the Older and Weaker. Society would benefit from the additional experience that the Older Alphas had acquired and could apply, while the Younger Alphas were brought up to Authority in a more orderly, convoluted and time-consuming manner. But the More Advanced Society is basically better simply because it is Bigger… and its acquired Traditions of Cooperation, especially in Games probably play out better when it comes to a Fight as well. Even Today, they only insist upon Team Sports in the Schools, as expensive as they are, because it makes the boys more easy to Drill later on when they become Soldiers and are sent off to die for King and Country. Remember what Wellington said, “Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton”. (Wellington was the English General who took the credit for defeating the French Emperor Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo. And Eton was some snobby private school).

So, my point here has been that there is no Natural Morality… that the further we go toward Pure Nature, the more immoral it all becomes. All Morality seems to be Adaptive, and rises up to serve the cause of Civilization, Cooperation and Bigger Numbers.

Oh, but what happens when a Civilization establishes itself and then grows comfortable? Even if all of the Customs and Traditions are supported by Culture and Education, still, a certain decay may set in. If Individuals can break the Rules of Cooperation and enrich themselves by it, and be allowed to get away with it Publicly, then the Days of Civilization are numbered. People who follow Rules are called “Losers”. One encounters common expressions such as “Nice guys finish last”.

It is not so much that one needs to cry sentimentally for the cause of Lost Civilization. The real problem is that Fragmented Individualistic Barbarian Societies cannot support the same Population Numbers as Cooperating Civilizations. When a Civilization goes into Decay, soon to follow is always a huge Population Collapse. Always. History shows us that there had been 21 Civilizations. They have all collapsed. We know what that looks like. And it ain’t pretty.

Anyway, how can this decay creep in? What happens to the Morality of a Totally Civilized People? You know, if you read Literatures from any Golden Age of Civilization, you are instantly struck by so many Social Constructs… not just Moral Constructs, but almost everything is intertwined with Principles, Honors, Customs and Traditions. It is completely spelled out as to what a Good Person does and thinks in every permissible Social Situation. Such a Monolithic Social Morality does not crack apart in a minute.

So elements of decadence have to creep in somehow. In our own Catholic Civilization, what happened was the Printing Press brought out the Teachings of Paul – Salvation and Forgiveness of Sins became popular. You know, people think that Christianity had always been Christianity, in the way we think of it today, but Catholic Civilization had actually done a fairly good job at burying the Paulist Doctrines while inculcating Moral Responsibilities. The focus of the High Middle Ages had been on the Blessed Virgin Mother of God… and everybody was supposed to be Her well-behaved Child. Jesus was shown mostly as an infant. Yes, the Bishops knew about Paulist Doctrines, and that is why they were such a decadent bunch of Fat Cats, then as now, but at least in regards to the most part of the People – Rich as well as Poor – all of the Moral Obligations remained clear. Salvation and the Reformation would turn that all around.

So, what Paulist Doctrine and Forgiveness of Sins introduced was a first allowance for a Permissive Morality. People still knew Right from Wrong, Good from Bad, but they were given the idea that God loved them more than He cared about Scoring by the Rules. One could commit Sin and God would look the other way. Boys will be boys, as they say. Sin was Natural and so it would be Tolerated. What actually happened for the most part was that Protestant Greed was unleashed, and the race for Concentrated Wealth would take off. It would take Centuries but at last we could arrive at that epitome of Human Progress where 1% of the Population could control 90% of the Wealth… and pay 1% of the Taxes. I call it an Epitome to be both sarcastic, of course, but also quite truthfully, as that has been the highest and final stage of every Civilization, immediately before its Collapse. It there is a Higher and Better Stage… we have yet to see it transpire.

The next decline in the Descent of Morality, from Moral Permissiveness, is to Amorality. Amorality is of two varieties – there is the Brutish Amorality of the uncultured and the unschooled – people from the Hills or from the Streets who get nothing that they do not steal or fight for. Then there is the Cultured Amorality of the intellectually sophisticated. As I have said, it is no secret to the Thoughtful, that there is no scientific basis for Morality. Yes, Societies benefit by being Moral… but Individuals are well aware that their concern needs be only for Themselves. Yes, it is Historically Inevitable that Amoral Societies eventually undergo huge Populations Collapses – that nearly everybody dies, most especially people who had provoked grudges… the Poor typically slaughter the Rich. Still, that can take generations to happen, and in the meanwhile, all these Smart People can see clear as day that he who dodges the most Rules makes the most money and acquires the most power.

I read about some Game that was put forward by some Scientific Study. Each Player could put forward a sum of his playing chips, and they would be matched by the “House” and re-divided amongst everybody. Everybody could win. But some of the more cunning players soon thought it out, and discovered that they could hold back their own contributions, and still partake of the re-distributions. The Game would eventually fall apart, but for a while the most selfish players would seem to “Win”… having more chips then everybody else when the fighting and name calling would begin.

One needs to wonder why everybody isn’t Amoral – there being so many Worldly Advantages, but so strong are the old Customs, Traditions and Thought Patterns surviving from some Golden Age Civilization. We refer to it as Conscience.

The lowest level to which immorality can sink is Evil. Where Amorality is attuned to self-aggrandizement, Evil actually seeks to do harm for the sake of doing harm. Well, actually, thinking about it for a moment, Evil can be rather Utilitarian. When any one person wishes to be the acknowledged Dominant Individual of a Society – the undisputed Dominant Individual – well, the surest means is to be entirely Evil, and then destroy anybody that wants to complain about it. So Evil is essentially about asserting Dominance. So it is that those who are most successful at being Amoral will eventually, if they are so lucky, be lead to being Evil, to flush out and destroy their competition.

This is why it is so worrisome that America is making such a big deal about being the Undisputed Sole Super Power of the World. If America holds to pattern, then their proof of Power will be through some huge Evil, to force their Enemies to step forward that they may be disposed of.