Ethics for the Modern World
by
Gernot Winkler

     Introduction.

It is often argued that man has no guidance for his behavior except by divine commands and public laws. Indeed, when religiosity decreased in the wake of scientific progress and the temptations of city living, moral behavior declined. As the number of crimes increased, it was only natural to call for more laws. But  criminality continued to increase. Obviously, life in society suffers when morality decreases and it is widely felt that one should advance to a better social life by a return to religion and further increase in the number of laws. This is, indeed, the belief of many Conservatives. We share their concern; however we must realize that two of the basic assumptions are fallacious. Concerning the first assumption, it is simply not true that moral guidance can only come from Divine revelations because morality exists in many places outside the Mosaic religions. These have been adopted only by one half of mankind, and it is unlikely that the other half will accept them peacefully.

Neither Confucianism, nor Taoism base their morality upon a belief in God or in divine revelations. These are not part of their systems, which served China for millennia. Buddha always refused to talk about such metaphysical beliefs as superfluous and harmful for the achievement of his goals. These cases are not unique; the idea that supernatural revelations and commands are necessary for morality can be believed only in disregard of the Chinese, the European, or the Indian classical past. Reading any pertinent work, written before Christianity appeared in European antiquity, such as Cicero’s De finibus, proves the point. In the many stories which are being mentioned, and in the discussion of what is to be seen as desirable and noble, a picture emerges of a higher ideal of humanity than what we hold today!

It is claimed that this old culture could only exist on the backs of slaves who provided the material basis for the high culture. This argument plays well on emotions, but it is wrong. Slavery existed everywhere, as did other bad features, but this is no reason why today, with technology giving us manifold more material support without human labor, we must fall back into barbarity. In fact, the antique social situation was the opposite. The reliance on slave labor was the ultimate cause for the downfall of the old culture. As Max Weber [1] shows, this reliance caused a gradual dilution of the urban culture, as it is evident in the stoppage of the literature, two centuries before the political collapse.
                       
The claim that morality needs a supernatural basis is not only invalid; it is also a detraction. It is the reason why anything that concerns morality can be discredited and ridiculed by the non believers. Morality is usually conceived as exclusively sexual morality in the Victorian sense, while no other rules of behavior seem to be so important. On the other side, people in the “cultural elite” like to be seen as “sophisticated,” implying amorality, in the confused belief that this is a superior intellectual position that supposedly shows how much they are avant-garde.

The state should not force a return to religion; this would be counter to our principle of separation of religion and state. A sole reliance on religion to restore a fading morality would also be unwise. Religion, as beneficial as it is for bringing a much needed faith (i.e., confidence, trust, [2]) to the believer, it does get easily out of control and fanatical extremes are a serious danger for humanity. In any case, the force of the state must not promote a particular religion after it has weakened. We must uphold the above principle, the more so since we live in the midst of different religions that are feuding with each other. It is hypocritical to teach tolerance if you favor one party over all others.

Concerning the second assumption; it is impossible to regulate all human action by case specific laws - as it is equally impossible to legalize a socially beneficial attitude of behavior. One can't  replace morality with laws. It would require a vast increase in their number and the result would be a legal jungle; people could not know all the pertinent laws. Moreover, a legal scale of precedence would also be required as guidance for the frequent cases when one law conflicts in its application with another one. Clearly, this creates not only  a legalism with excessive complexity; it would generate intolerable injustice (summum ius, summa iniuria!). Man needs guidance, not an accumulation of obscure law.
A Morality for Our Times

For a real advance in our culture a recognized Code of behavior, i.e., a formal moral standard, would be most beneficial. This would be a Code that is supportive of, and not in opposition to, the prescriptions of the major religions. It is to consist of the core of existing but unwritten rules of behavior that reflects the essential values of the modern multi-cultural society. Such a code, neutral in respect to religion and based on the implicit civic morality of a healthy society, could then serve as an easily understandable guidance in social life. This should meet little opposition if it does not conflict with religious teachings. Actually, it must support them in the essentials.

Such a code must take into account the modern requirements and it can be taught as part of a political introduction to life. This can also be seen as augmenting the respective work by the religious authorities. But a formal civic code is urgently needed for a multicultural, global human society to give guidance for those who are estranged from religious teachings. Many young individuals grow up today as real barbarians who see nothing wrong in their wicked behavior as long as they gain advantages or thrills. Even those who are not so estranged, need to have more guidance than they now have, as their frequent anti social actions prove only too well. The religious ought not to object to this because the absence of a generally recognized standard of civic morality is the main cause of attacks on religion and the social chaos which exists in large parts of the present society.

Morality in the modern society cannot be the exclusive domain of religions because it concerns everybody of whatever beliefs. Otherwise, people without religion could assume, as many indeed do, that morality is not their concern. It must be said that the failure to admit this clearly in our free society, is an important factor in the present state of the culture. The Decalogue of more than three millennia ago, venerable as it is; or the prescriptions of any old major religion do not provide sufficient guidance for the situations in a modern society. The result is the pathetic state of public morality, not only of public figures, but of the majority of the people! Many of them, including even clerics, have no firm idea of what is right or wrong if it is not specifically mentioned in existing standards - see the pitiful performance of some “spiritual leaders” in the face of the most serious moral slips of high public officials, such as perjury. The vague thinking that is revealed by confused statements of these officials that one has heard must be the result of ignorance of values, their scale, and of the need for a priority in their application.

Furthermore, the Mosaic code is not respected by the secular part of the Western world because the stories of miracles as source of the code have become a cause for disbelief, if not ridicule - a liability instead of a proof. In any case, a miraculous origin for rules of civic behavior is neither needed, nor is it desirable. Even in the most primitive tribes, such rules are recognized as a necessity. The idea of good and evil came about not because acts were good or evil for the individual (such as prescribed by hygiene), but for the tribe as a whole. Even higher animals show the beginnings of ethical behavior (pre human ethics) out of instinct, which could also be taken as a form of divine guidance. (Scripture is silent on this). In any case, morality is perfectly natural and indispensable in any livable society.

How bad the moral situation really is in Western society can be estimated from news reports about public scandals, and in a variety of other ways, probably best by the response of the public to the ethics scandals in and out of government. These show that in a specific case of the past, almost two thirds (!) of the population, which includes a major part of the religious, could not care less about principles as long as the scandals do not affect their own personal well-being. But in this, they are sadly mistaken. Corruption is like a cancer that after a while, begins to affect everything. Many morally uneducated - which includes also many who use the Decalogue as the sole source of commands for behavior - accept that bribery is "lobbying" and the bribes are mere "consultant fees.” Even plain perjury is now explained away as a case of  “semantic triviality,” if it is not “a terminological inexactitude” (as Churchill had said, but he spoke in jest). Moreover, some people seem to believe that bribes are OK as long as they are disclosed. Stealing, bribing, and telling lies are not "leveraging" or "technicalities,” and deception is not a sales trick, actions that are ok as long as they bring about a desired end and are not against a specific law.

The “Enron” scandal of 2002 and quite a few more of the same kind are a sure sign of a rotten top management of some huge corporations. It exposes a serious social problem which we try, again, to correct with more specific laws. This cannot help everywhere because the most serious social troubles are in the family. A large percentage of the children lack responsible parents and grow up in a problem family, if they have any at all. This way, the faults of one generation get magnified into the next as it shows up in the crime statistics and in the shocking numbers of juvenile delinquency. Furthermore, in a recent study of corruption in various countries, America was on 16th place, down from Denmark as the country with least corruption [3].  No cause for pride here! In order to recognize and admit the problem, we need the support of the media which is essential. Without their critical examination of moral problems, social health cannot be preserved nor restored.

The idea of a civic code is not new. Previous proposals for such a code, all of which have failed, have suffered from the unwise idea to copy from established religion by making the belief in God part of the proposed civic “religion.” This is a cardinal mistake, it makes the code into one more religion, but inauthentic and unacceptable to both sides, the religious and the secular (we think of Rousseau, Robespierre, Comte). The common fault in these attempts was that people did not understand the need to separate the social requirements from what the person should do in his own interest, or in other terms, they did not see a difference between ethical and hygienic (in the widest sense) standards.

Below we give an example that can serve as "minimum.” Of course, we expect that it will be ridiculed as far too demanding, even naive, if not utopian for our modern society. This criticism would only show how right our assessment of the need for such a code is and how far we have to go to achieve a genuine advance in culture and restoration of social health. Those who find our goals too demanding,  must realize that high goals and standards are indispensable. Presently, the public has no generally recognized secular guidance for good behavior, not even for the leaders, and it assumes that, as long as there is no law against objectionable behavior, it must be ok.

We also do not need to worry about another possible objection, that people who adhere to such a code, will be overwhelmed by those who do not follow it, on the grounds that the code is too noble which puts its adherents at a disadvantage. This could have been true one thousand years ago. Today, we can advance from a regulated society which has achieved some order, although the results are not very good.

Objection will also be made that this code is not complete and not sufficiently specific, but a Code such as this is not a law, it should give only a guidance and not details. Moreover, for public use we must not try to replace specific religious prescriptions with new commandments - rather we must design the code with broad guidance which matches the temptations in the modern world that create problems for society. Therefore, the individual for his own use must not stop here. He is free, even encouraged, to go further in efforts to gain personal faith and strength. The state can only deal with minimum guidelines to be accepted by everyone in the sole interest of a more harmonious social life.

Nevertheless and as an aside, it would be a benefit for everyone to return to a more spiritually oriented way of life. By spiritual we mean without a material purpose, i.e., we take the sense of spirituality as opposed to a materiality that means a strictly utilitarian (egoistic) orientation. Spirituality does not imply a specific belief, even though, the majority of the spiritually oriented individuals of today will be religious in the traditional sense. It is also sadly true that religious people are not necessarily spiritual!

A change away from a materialistic way of life will be beneficial because otherwise, it is much harder for people in an urban mass society to structure their life in a more meaningful way. Without spirituality and remote from nature, there are too many pressures and seductions, and the revelation that many people face in the presence of death is chiefly the pointlessness of the way they have lived. Without it, it is also nearly impossible for highly intelligent minds to avoid the destructive pitfall of arrogance and pride - Lucifer's old temptation!

Religious matters must be a personal issue. If this principle is not respected, a progressive clash between the religions with their different world views is unavoidable and make a peaceful society impossible. This is why we must not connect our code with a specific metaphysical basis or with supernatural revelations, which could be interpreted as religious.  The absence of a religious content, combined with the rational basis should insure that the code is not in violation of the First Amendment to the American Constitution and can be sanctioned by government as useful for the social life of all. For public purposes, it is necessary and sufficient to take the individual items as a consequence of practical reason, leading to a code of behavior that is good if, by general acceptance, a desirable society would result. As Kant has it: "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." This covers a range of actions that is larger than the very old rule “quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris”, also known as the Golden Rule. This rule only limits the acts and is silent about what ought to be done.

One should use the pragmatic test, i.e., ask whether wide acceptance of the code would help create a better society. Or, should the improvement of our life be left to ever more laws and rules issued by the government?  If you think a reliance on others is better, then the Code will be of little use to you, and you would fare well in a totalitarian society where you will be told what to do and forced to rely on others who, if they feel as you do, will fail you. As explained before, the religious should be at an advantage because a truly religious person with faith will not need much of this. It is the secular and superficially religious who need it very much.
A Scale of Precedence overcomes conflicts of rules. 

The need for a code arises because of the unavoidable conflict of individual interests. Unfortunately  in real life, we often have to choose between violating one or the other of mutually opposing rules. This does not mean that for this reason, we cannot follow such rules at all, which could be a most convenient excuse for the rascals. It merely means that, in addition, we need a scale of precedence (importance).  In this scale we must give highest priority to the saving of life, avoidance of harm, telling the truth and to actions that affect a large number of people. Do not hurt! (if hurting is inescapable, hurt the fewest) must be the top prescription. An example would be if, by telling the truth, we cause great harm to others. This case is quite frequent and even Jesus told an untruth deliberately (John, 7, 8ff).

The avoidance of harm will have to take precedence over truthfulness depending on the degree of harm although, this does not remove accountability for lying which is a most serious offense (except lying under unavoidable duress, which is also covered by the rule just mentioned). In any case, it would have been better to look ahead and avoid the need for lying in the first place (see Relative Ethics). Most importantly, truth must always get a higher priority than justice and any other consideration except harm. This is necessary because without truth we cannot rely on anything and social life is severely degraded. A lower precedence must be given to actions that are beneficial to the social system and still lower to actions of purely personal importance in the measure of additional factors, however with the following qualification. Throughout Western history, the individual was ranked above the abstract idea of the Collective.  The origin of this principle goes back to Greece and the Hebrews. Christianity has strengthened it and it is the major difference to primitive societies which see the individual predominantly in its role as part of the Collective which, therefore, in these societies has precedence. It is in my opinion a sign of degeneration of the culture in the West that this old, time-honored principle is in danger. The change has been signaled by Hegel's philosophy which saw in the state the highest aim and purpose of social life. Karl Marx and Marxism (as well as the fascist heresies of socialism) have taken this over and we could see the effect in the shameful conditions of all countries that became victims of this ideology. The difference in this fundamental principle is still a problem in the struggle of the West with socialism and its various forms. It is a sad fact that many shortsighted people fall prey to the treacherous idea that the collective can give them a form of salvation when in fact, it is the end of true humanity to seek human goals in a serfdom to the collective instead of in personal improvement. This has been clearly recognized by the major representatives of Existentialism (William Barrett, Irrational Man, 7.3, p.167).

In the use of precedence, good judgment is, of course, indispensable. This can be improved in regular case studies with emphasis on criteria and rules, best done if it is received by people before the age of twenty. We see many with strong egos and fanatics who are notoriously incompetent in the making of rational judgments who do not know about the most elementary principles of social behavior and the making of sound decisions. They don't seem to know the need for knowledge and for self-restraint, and they tend to drive every rule ad absurdum.

They do not use rules of precedence (see 4.) in a rational procedure in the making of important decisions. These immature types can be found everywhere and also among the followers of great men where they ruin the teachings of their masters with their mindless extremism and lack of insight. They may be “brilliant”, have great memory and a facility for abstract reasoning, but little personal judgment. They have not been sufficiently conditioned for life in a free society.

These are the people who, in their moral fervor, overdo everything [4], and in the interest of saving lives, as they say, they shoot doctors. Or those who, driven by ardent humanitarianism, in order to improve society, seek first to destroy it - at any cost. Or those who, by citing humanitarian reasons, refuse to effectively protect humanity from villains that have killed, and have shown their intent to kill indiscriminately. These are the people who argue that the Constitution requires us to do something stupid and dangerous. These are the pseudo intellectuals who worry about imagined causes of human catastrophes and engage in endless debates and speculations instead of supporting the steps necessary so that the catastrophes do not happen. Many of these individuals with limited vision have been - in the famous bon mot - educated into positions beyond their capability. We find them everywhere, even at high level as “spiritual leaders” (Bishops!), as presidents of huge corporations, even of countries.

The only way to improve this situation is obvious and has been already proposed by Plato. He envisioned a conditioning of the young so that they can act more rationally as a matter of habit after growing up. We can do this - but it is difficult and cannot be perfect. It is surprising that this has not been attempted before in a systematic way, society wide. I believe it was the absence of a generally accepted civic code as basis for repeated discussions in all sorts of applications.  Any success would have inestimable benefits for all.

The code proposed here as an example is deliberately kept broad as a sort of policy guidance for action as needed in various circumstances. It has to be broad otherwise it would not be guidance but another law and it would not be simple and understandable. As it is given here, it speaks to the personal sentiment. An excellent and unpretentious example for  specific guidance for good citizenship (that is in perfect conformance with our code) is the little book by Jennifer McKnight-Trontz, The Good Citizen's Handbook (Chronicle Books). We recommend looking at our code or looking into this little book as a self test. If your reaction is a temptation to snicker, you do not really comprehend the grave seriousness of today's situation in our relatively free society.
THE CODE

1. Be humble in the world of which you are a totally insignificant and fleeting part. Yet be confident, strong, and responsible because much depends on you.

2. Work for the peaceful advance of your country. You support it by doing your duty, working as well as you can in your job, in whatever station. It is an effective way to confirm your patriotism.

3. Preserve resources. Do not waste, it will deprive those who come after you.

4. Show a high sense of public duty and avoid actions that are harmful to the public.

5. Respect and protect your fellow humans, their feelings and property. Behave with tact, tolerance and understanding. Do not harm anyone, except in measured self-defense. Be generous with others.

6. Live up to your responsibilities to those who depend on you; be humane to animals and protect them from cruelties.

7. Do your share for a healthy family life; be an example for your  children.

8. Be honest and truthful; be modest in your life. Do not seek unearned benefits.

9. Be uncompromising to injustice, parasitism, and dishonesty, but oppose laws in trifles and for personal purposes. A society can only be free if it has few codes and these laws will only be respected if they deal with matters of general importance.

10. Avoid racial, national, and other personal prejudices. Membership in whatever group cannot confer personal merit, only behavior does. Therefore everybody must be given the same chances and rights.
The foundation of ethics.

In discussions of secular ethics we are forced, as much as elsewhere, to sift the sound and essential from a mountain of verbiage. By doing this, we will find that there are basically two useful foundations: a Personal and a Political (systemic) basis. For very deep reasons, they produce the same result. The first is based on insight: it recognizes a motivation in us to do the right thing because of an instinctive identification with the other person. It is the identity aspect of all being which is experienced with an intensity that ranges for different individuals from a very strong insight that can lead to self-sacrifice in the saving of others, all the way to nothing, even to the limitless brutality of antisocial perverts. The undeniable presence of this normal instinctive disposition in man, that appears as our conscience, has been taken by Arthur Schopenhauer as the basis for his theory of ethics. It reveals ethical relativism as a serious mistake that goes against the most elementary facts of life. We are all part of one species with the same problems. We are multiply related biologically even in the case of complete strangers and people from other countries and races, as it is obvious through DNA research. This is universal throughout humanity as a single species, even if people might confuse customs with basic morality because different regional customs are found in the different religions, of which many thousands exist.

The second foundation is constructive and abstract:  we agree with rules of behavior because they are evidently needed for a livable community and the basis of this morality is the desire to live in social harmony. This political - systemic foundation follows Confucius and Kant. It is based on the single principle that social harmony is desirable. This is a great and useful idea. However, it is easy in this to go too far. Kant even considers an action only good if it has been done because it was a duty to follow a rationally established code. From this idea which we find surprisingly odd (Kant embraced purely formal reasons), it is only a small step to arrive at what Tertullian said somewhere that one has to do the good not because it is good but because God (through his church) orders us to do it. We think that this is totally misguided because it puts the artificial, the command, over the natural, regardless whether we believe in God or not. An ethics that is based solely on commands and threatened punishments, is really no ethics at all.

The above Code, or something like it, is necessary, but perhaps not sufficient. This brings up the so-called Utilitarianism which is a derivative of, but not identical with, the political basis that we mentioned. It runs into problems when it is developed beyond the elementary level; it becomes unavoidably materialistic. Lastly, we recognize that the need for a moral code is immensely strengthened by Kenneth Arrow's theorem [5] about the inevitable irrationality in social settings. This makes striving for social harmony a necessity, beyond a mere desire for it. Only by voluntary self-restraint and some self-denial can we hope to avoid irrational situations which otherwise lead to struggle, hostility, and even war. This need is too poorly explained and poorly justified in utilitarianism.

One might find the following work relevant and challenging in its superior academic style: P.W. Bridgman (1959), The Way Things Are. Harvard University Press.  B, a physicist and Nobel laureate, was motivated to this work because he recognized that there is a fundamental ineptness in the use of our own minds and that the most revolutionary implications of modern science for the fundamental limitations of our mind are not appreciated by most scientists (hence the most unwise discussions about Darwinism, Creationism, Cosmology, etc.).  B. discusses the subject of Codes extensively, including the problem of juvenile delinquency. However, our Code is not in his book. Considerable discussion of the relationship of modern advanced science to the problem of morality is found in many places. But again, the simpler the reasoning, the more realistic it will be. We must not over rationalize what we know, what we want, and what we value.
Relative Ethics?

Max Weber (Soziologie, Politik. Alfred Kröner, Stuttgart, Vol. 229, Chapter: Der Beruf zur Politik) explains that ethics become much more complex as one accepts responsibility for others. He distinguishes two ethics, the ethics of conviction (CE) and the ethics of responsibility (RE). This distinction is advisable in view of the intrinsic irrationality of a world in which best intentions can produce evil results and conversely, evil actions might be necessary to have beneficial results (or we must decide between two evils). In other words, the only way to remain free of all sin, would be to abstain from all action! We must accept this fact and deal with it, as we said above, by the use of precedence on the basis of very basic values. Unavoidably however, our action will then depend on the expected result of our action. This dependency could be confused with Situational Ethics, since it depends on the occasion. However, this would be a misleading idea and many arguments supporting the concept of a result dependency of ethics are simply wrong because we must hold on to the values that are implicit in our CE and if we do not, we become culpable! Hence, people who do not understand the need to violate their most precious convictions are unfit for responsible positions because their inflexibility causes great harm. If they understand and have sensitivity, they might break down under the need to violate their convictions - or if they do not violate them, under the knowledge that they cause much greater harm than would otherwise be necessary.

It requires a true hero to knowingly accept culpability for the benefit of a much greater good, or the prevention of a much greater harm. Nevertheless, the hero who acts this way, becomes guilty by saving many others. His guilt is not removed by the benefits of his action, but must be accepted by him. On the other hand, knowing this, he will be extremely cautious and cannot depend on fancy ideologies in his expectation of what will or should come about as the result of his actions. The rulers in totalitarian regimes who caused untold harm to their citizens have not been heroes, but irresponsible tyrants because their expectations have been specious, while they violated their CE morality. Genuine leadership requires sacrifices. It is the deep reason why we must allow all individuals the greatest possible degree of freedom to make them responsible for their own actions and, this way, ease the burden of the leader. We find here another reason why a simple and inflexible belief in the Decalogue, or in any other inflexible specific rule, is not sufficient as the sole guidance necessary in life, especially for leaders. It is clear why a sole reliance on any abstract system will, unavoidably, lead into serious trouble while on the other hand, simple minds can find the right action much better if they listen to their own heart.

Finally, this is the reason why the appointment of leaders is such an extremely delicate matter. In the last analysis, the leader depends on his character when he has to decide critical actions which determine the fate of others. Only his past performance can give clues how he will be able to do in the future.
-----------------------------
Notes and References

[1] See Max Weber, Soziologie, etc., (Kröner, Volume 229).  W.  makes it abundantly clear why the Roman culture declined with the use of slaves after the free peasants were decimated in the Punic wars and increasingly thereafter.

[2] To the fearful disciples who had asked him to save them, Jesus said:
Τι δειλοι ’εστε, ’ολιγοπιστοι  (Matth. 8, 26). Why fearful are ye, O (ye) little-trusting?  In the various translations, with time, the word for trust gained the implication of a belief. But, this is confusing; beliefs as such will not be of use, while confidence is needed and helps in all cases. These are distinct concepts: Creed and Faith!  The creed, or ideology, is a vehicle for bringing faith. (A leader conveys faith to the disciples mainly through his charisma - what he says is less important). With religion institutionalized, abstract creed becomes the main thing, more and more irrational as it is slowly modified. However, this entails a high price because an ideology can easily incite people to fanatic hostility, while faith is indispensable for leading a good life. The less ideology we need for sustaining our faith, the better.  We can speak of political beliefs, but a political faith would be absurd. We meet many creeds, but one faith.

[3] The study was published by Transparency International & Göttingen Univ., Germany, with more information available from Frank Vogl, Vice-Chairman, Transparency International. Phone USA 202-331-8183, FAX 202-331-8187.  Internet page:   http://www.transparency.org/

[4]  Paracelsus recognized that sola dosis facit venenum, only the amount makes the poison. In other words, even the best thing, the best action, is poisonous if overdone. Of course, this wisdom is supposed to be known by everybody (the economists have their  Law of Diminishing Returns), but in fact, society suffers from uncounted cases of an idiotic overdoing of good and necessary things.

[5]  Kenneth Arrow in his Social Choice and Individual (1951), demonstrated how irrationality is intrinsic in society. It is unavoidable because the individually different valuation of things and actions creates the conflicts which can be regulated and suppressed by laws but can only be avoided and overcome by voluntary restraint, education, and compromises.

Copyright © 2003, Gernot M. R. Winkler             Last Correction   8/28/2008