Academic morality vs. Grass roots morality
Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:14 pm
The literate and intelligent amongst us perceive the problems inherent in morality and ethics. We are academics who take a much wider view of human condition on planet earth. But amongst the general illiterate population, morality operates as a process of group think, peer pressure, and mob violence. Eccentric individuals are punished until their behavior is "corrected" back into a version that pleases the mob. When punishment fails, threats are used.
Within the study of pure ethics, we have a discourse in which we perform a number of different investigations on the matters of morality and ethics. Among these investigations, are whether morals are relative or universal, whether any ethical truths can be obtained or framed, and how would a moral truth act on behavior precisely. Distinctions between descriptive and normative language are investigated. Recently and especially in philosophy journals, the topic of Public Morality vis-a-vis Private Morality is written about at length.
The above paragraph can loosely be referred to as "Academic Morality", or in some cases "Pure ethics".
However, when one strays a mere 50 feet outside the protective cloisters of the university, one will immediately encounter the way in which morality functions among "the people"; amongst the "population" at large. This form of morality operates in the most superficial, juvenile manner. We can refer to this as the way the vast majority of non-specialists among a population relate to morality, or situate themselves in relation to morality. Among the vast majority of the population, morality is invariably manifest as a conflict between a peer group and an individual, where the "natural" expectation is that the peer group will eventually prevail.
This conflict proceeds roughly in four stages, in order of increasing intensity:
Second stage is "peer pressure" equivalent to "little punishments" to an outlying individual in the group who is not going along with the established group-think. If an individual is acting outside the "general flow" of the group's behavior, they are ostracized by the peers in hopes that these punishments will correct the behavior.
Third stage is mob threats. This is where peer pressure has evolved into outright hostility. The outlying individual is harassed and threatened by the mob if their non-normative behavior is not corrected in a way that pleases them. In this stage, outright hostility can yield to emotions associated with revenge.
The fourth stage is when the peer group declares itself morally authoritative, and since sheer numbers are on their side, they feel justified in utilizing violence to control the individual. At this point, the peer group is not peers anymore, but has simply disintegrated into an unruly mob.
The above four stages can be loosely referred to as Grass Roots Morality.
In summary, the literate and intelligent amongst us perceive the problems inherent in morality and ethics. We are academics who take a much wider view of the human condition on planet earth. But amongst the general illiterate population, morality operates as a process of group think, peer pressure, and mob violence.
Morality and ethical quandaries simply go no deeper for the illiterate majority of the population. For them, morality is simply a power conflict between a mob and an individual that mob seeks to control. The mob perceives itself as mainstream, and from that alone declares itself morally authoritative, without any further rigor or justification. Hostility then fuels irrational emotions such as revenge against the independent individual. Hostility and irrational feelings of revenge are then held aloft as a justification for waging violence against the individual. Transparently , they are no justification at all. That is to say, personal anger does not justify violence and threats of violence (coercion). But if a mob can be whipped into a frenzy, they may be temporarily swept up in the moment and seduced into thinking this is rational behavior.
Within the study of pure ethics, we have a discourse in which we perform a number of different investigations on the matters of morality and ethics. Among these investigations, are whether morals are relative or universal, whether any ethical truths can be obtained or framed, and how would a moral truth act on behavior precisely. Distinctions between descriptive and normative language are investigated. Recently and especially in philosophy journals, the topic of Public Morality vis-a-vis Private Morality is written about at length.
The above paragraph can loosely be referred to as "Academic Morality", or in some cases "Pure ethics".
However, when one strays a mere 50 feet outside the protective cloisters of the university, one will immediately encounter the way in which morality functions among "the people"; amongst the "population" at large. This form of morality operates in the most superficial, juvenile manner. We can refer to this as the way the vast majority of non-specialists among a population relate to morality, or situate themselves in relation to morality. Among the vast majority of the population, morality is invariably manifest as a conflict between a peer group and an individual, where the "natural" expectation is that the peer group will eventually prevail.
This conflict proceeds roughly in four stages, in order of increasing intensity:
- 1. Group think
- 2. Peer pressure
- 3. Mob threats
- 4. Mob violence
Second stage is "peer pressure" equivalent to "little punishments" to an outlying individual in the group who is not going along with the established group-think. If an individual is acting outside the "general flow" of the group's behavior, they are ostracized by the peers in hopes that these punishments will correct the behavior.
Third stage is mob threats. This is where peer pressure has evolved into outright hostility. The outlying individual is harassed and threatened by the mob if their non-normative behavior is not corrected in a way that pleases them. In this stage, outright hostility can yield to emotions associated with revenge.
The fourth stage is when the peer group declares itself morally authoritative, and since sheer numbers are on their side, they feel justified in utilizing violence to control the individual. At this point, the peer group is not peers anymore, but has simply disintegrated into an unruly mob.
The above four stages can be loosely referred to as Grass Roots Morality.
In summary, the literate and intelligent amongst us perceive the problems inherent in morality and ethics. We are academics who take a much wider view of the human condition on planet earth. But amongst the general illiterate population, morality operates as a process of group think, peer pressure, and mob violence.
Morality and ethical quandaries simply go no deeper for the illiterate majority of the population. For them, morality is simply a power conflict between a mob and an individual that mob seeks to control. The mob perceives itself as mainstream, and from that alone declares itself morally authoritative, without any further rigor or justification. Hostility then fuels irrational emotions such as revenge against the independent individual. Hostility and irrational feelings of revenge are then held aloft as a justification for waging violence against the individual. Transparently , they are no justification at all. That is to say, personal anger does not justify violence and threats of violence (coercion). But if a mob can be whipped into a frenzy, they may be temporarily swept up in the moment and seduced into thinking this is rational behavior.