Moral Convictions and Behavior: Theory and Practice

Throughout some of my previous articles I took a skeptical position regarding the existence of a metaphysical, universal morality. Nonetheless, in every practical sense human beings see themselves as operating and holding some form of moral convictions. My objective here is to analyze these convictions from a philosophical and sociological perspective and see what importance they have with everyday individuals. My conclusions will rest on a number of empirical facts that indicate that despite strong opinions regarding "right" and "wrong," most people fail to live up to their own moral expectations - further evidence that morality plays little importance in the life of an everyday person.

What's most fascinating is the fear surrounding the type of person characterized as "evil." Throughout various forms of media, including literature, plays, song, and film the true villain that piques our interest as truly villainous is the callous, calculating individual for whom knowledge of right and wrong is present; however, they simply do not care. These individuals, while their actions may be described as immoral (or more boldly as 'evil'), hold an outlook and perspective can best be described as amoral. As described in my article on amorality (in general), it's a view that fails to see the world as relations between "right" and "wrong," or "good" and "evil." Knowing socially acceptable and unacceptable behavior yet not considering oneself subject to these restraints nor concerned with the rights or dignity of others is often times characterized as a personality disorder known as anti-social personality (commonly also referred to as sociopath).

As for the rest of us, we consider ourselves acting upon some form of moral conduct, which differs in varying degrees upon trivial details. Nonetheless, many people hold these moral convictions as important guidelines on how to live a "good life." My question for inquiry then is, "how important are these convictions? And how well do we live up to them?"

My conclusion rests upon a number of premises that incorporates some commonly held moral expectations that seem popularly held by American citizens. Often times these moral convictions are taken to be universally true (regardless of what this means) and commonly seen as necessary beliefs for any decent or good person. One of which is the moral conviction that we ought to treat other people the way in which we would like to be treated (more commonly held as the 'Golden Rule'). While other moral convictions seem to take place that are also popularly espoused or held, this one seems to take precedence over all others if you consider the prevalence it has in everyday relations. Numerous times throughout one's life one is instructed to act on this simple yet radical moral principle in regards to how we ought to treat one another, regardless of circumstances. Indeed, such a moral principle carries with it far greater weight than its simplicity might imply.

For the sake of argument (at least in the abstract) let's assume this principle is a common belief amongst those whom consider themselves moral as a necessary (albeit insufficient) consideration for being a "good" person. Likewise, let's assume these people whom hold this moral conviction also see themselves as acting on it daily, and thus believe themselves to be "good" people (as opposed to bad people). Now, before we look at the empirical evidence suggesting that people do not actually take these convictions seriously (when confronted with other needs) we should first analyze and examine what this moral principle actually contains.

"Treat others like you yourself would like to be treated," otherwise known as the "Golden Rule" bears a very similar tone to the Categorical Imperative as written by the famous Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant. Though Kant's theory is extraordinarily more complex, we may borrow some of his theoretical posits in explaining what's involved with the "Golden Rule." One of the most obvious similarities that may be drawn between the Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative is the understanding that one ought not to treat others as merely means, but always as ends in themselves. For instance, it's wrong to treat people as things that can be used to our own advantage - since its likely we ourselves would not approve of being used in such a way, then it follows we must extend this consideration to others. Secondly, it involves a principle of beneficence. If we consider ourselves in need we should like to think that others would come to our aide; therefore, it follows that we ought to be beneficent and charitable to those whom are in need as well, to the best of our ability just as we would desire if we were in such destitution.

The keystone to these principles within the Golden Rule mark it as a law of reciprocity. It implies a sense of mutual respect for fellow human beings and instruction as to how we ought to treat others. In this way it differs from other more complex ethical theories, like deontology or consequentialism; however, it's popularity and almost universal applicability rests on its invocation of a common human sentiment: empathy. Any ethics based on the law of reciprocity focuses on one's ability to empathize, or put one's self into the position of another, and treat him like he would want to be treated. That is why the Golden Rule and its foundational principles are the guiding basis for the concept of universal human rights, and similar philosophies.

With this in mind though, how well do we (as human beings) stand up to our own moral convictions? If we look throughout the course of human history, ethics and morality have always been accessible, fundamental, and valued concepts that have played significant roles in everyday conduct, common traditions and cultures, and even in formal law across all societies. So it cannot be argued that morality is a modern construct - far from it. It should be noted that upon man's socialization from tribal hunter-gatherer societies to ancient civilization (all the way to modern day man) he has had some concept of acceptable versus unacceptable behaviors. Why this has developed in this way can be explained in a number of ways, but for our purposes today this is irrelevant. What I'm focused on here is the fact that moral convictions and one's own subjective perspective of morality rarely holds up to what it's claimed to be even at the most individual or subjective level. To verify these we need only to look at some objective, empirical evidence indicating this extraordinary hypocrisy.

If we take the Golden Rule as a law of reciprocity and see how it's practical use weighs in against its theoretical standardization we find that even though its near universal acceptance amongst most religious faiths and self-proclaimed "good people" that other sensible factors often times overrule one's own moral convictions. Let's consider the following examples:

Take for instance any servicemen in any national military unit. Regardless of their faith, those who voluntarily enlist in the armed forces adopt a code (not of their own) which trumps their own moral convictions. These men and women are then trained to kill and serve their country, for which most of the time they are given the utmost respect by their civilian counterparts and the state itself. While this is not necessarily an immoral action, what of the fact that they know little to nothing of the individuals or groups for whom they are ordered to fight? When does moral conviction step in and guide their actions against the orders of superiors? True, soldiers are trained and socialized in a manner to follow authority not their own initiative, nonetheless this is a prime example of when moral conviction - no matter how good one sees himself, is trumped by conditioning and threat of physical pressure if orders are not followed.

Following this example consider the more extreme situation where soldiers are ordered to interrogate an individual in order to gain information. Let's say soldier x does believe in the Golden Rule. Now, is he unable to empathize with the individual whom he is about to interrogate using what he feels unsavory methods? Imagine soldier x standing in front of a man tied to a chair, blindfolded and restrained. Next to him is a table. On top of the table is a variety of instruments intended to inflict pressure upon the suspect in order to gain information from him. Soldier x considers himself a good man, and for all intents and purposes let's assume he gains no pleasure from inflicting pain or any other sadistic behaviors. What does he do? Assuming he is like many other soldiers placed in this position - he follows orders.

Consider the findings in Stanley Milgram's social experiment on whether or not regular individuals will inflict pain upon other human beings when instructed to do so. If you're unfamiliar with this experiment refer to my Content Producer page and read my article on Milgram's experiment on Authority. Basically, Milgram found that a vast majority of otherwise decent individuals would be willing to "shock" sample victims when they failed to provide a correct answer. Some did so hesitantly, but when pressured by one of the researchers to induce the shock most followed suit. Many individuals felt uncomfortable about inflicting pain on another. Most felt what they were doing was against their own moral convictions; nonetheless, they did as they were told. The important findings of this study reveal something intriguing about human beings: they're willing to forsake their own moral feelings about certain actions or behaviors simply because someone else in a perceived role of authority instructed them to go against their feelings and do as they were told.

Consider an urban setting where a woman is being violently raped. In studies, psychologists and sociologists have found that when more people are around, it is less likely that any one individual will come to the aide of someone in need. This occurs because responsibility for helping another human being is transferred to everybody else. If I see someone in need, but there are other people around to help, then I need not worry; someone else will step in. This type of response is not all that unusual, even though it certainly would violate our own moral convictions regarding the power of empathy and the Golden Rule. We're avoiding a situation where our own moral conviction regarding beneficence instructs us to act, yet we fail to do so.

These examples (and there are plenty more to support my claim) illustrate that even the most self-described moral person seldom acts consistently on his or her moral convictions. Rather, we see other sensible or physical factors taking precedence over internalized moral ideals. Thus, the morality for which many people hold as universally binding and popularly accepted doesn't necessarily play a significant role when other potent stimuli are present. I would even go as far to speculate that moral conviction plays a relatively insignificant role in everyday situations. Even in trivial matters we do not act upon our own moral convictions, even when not doing so causes no harm. Do we properly thank those who do something for us? If you've ever failed to thank or offer your gratitude to the bagger at the grocery store whom bags your groceries, essentially you've used him as a means and not as an end in himself. Most of us can empathize with what it feels like to be underappreciated. However, where is the motivation to apply our own moral convictions into our daily routine?

In conclusion this is not altogether that surprising. Morality itself is a dubious concept that fails to objectively counteract all the other factors that dominate our lives. This is not a human failure since it would appear most of us are caught in situations for which we have no control, and this determination leaves us with little opportunity to take moral convictions as seriously as we may like. Ultimately it leaves morality in an even more precarious position as its dwindling effects on our lives continues to erode.