Consciousness-Raising and Moral Discovery

In a previous post, I discussed the importance for progressive social change of questioning our intuitions about the world. This process is one of ‘consciousness-raising’; specifically of becoming aware of the structures in which we live; noticing that these structures are neither eternal nor of divine or other sacred providence; and recognizing that all social arrangements can be challenged on the basis of their adherence or otherwise to principles of justice. This final point - whether current social arrangements adhere to principles of justice - assumes the existence of a relatively universal set of moral principles across human beings, which can be logically derived, and confidently asserted. In this post, I would like to explore the extent to which this assumption holds, and thereby come to an understanding of human moral reasoning in general, and where it might lead us in future.

Plainly, moral systems differ across cultures, and they have shifted across time; after all, we no longer burn witches, hang, draw and quarter criminals, or fight duels to the death to prove our honour. These facts have led some to argue that morality is relativistic, and thus free to vary without bounds as a function of the social, cultural and historical circumstances present at the time. That is, moral principles just happen to be what they are because of historical accident, but, given an alternate course of events, these principles could have been entirely, and arbitrarily, otherwise. In other words, the answer to the question “why is action X wrong?” would simply be “action X is wrong because our culture or society, as it is now, has decided it is wrong”.

From the point of view of progressive social change, this is an incredibly depressing conclusion to draw (which, of course, does not necessarily mean it is incorrect). This extreme relativist perspective assumes that there are no constraints on what different human beings will deem moral, and that there is no shared basis for moral argument. From this it follows that all moral discourse can simply end with any participant asserting “this is what I believe” without argument, to which others would simply have to respond “if you think it is so, then it is so for you”. Social change could not be achieved through consciousness-raising, as there is no specific or defined consciousness to raise, but rather only subjective opinions about what is right and wrong, situated entirely in time and place. There would also be little that could be thought of as “progress”, as progress requires a constrained trajectory, and a general trend over time. Instead, morality would shift in what would appear to be a random fashion, both across different societies and from the past into the future. Any attempts at moral change would be like a weathervane, pointing in the direction of the prevailing cultural winds, but then chaotically blown this way and that whenever conditions changed.

An alternate perspective is one that accepts the empirical reality of cultural variability in morality and moral codes, but still searches for any universal moral principles that might exist. This perspective looks deeper than the surface rules of behaviour that appear to vary so much across human societies, and instead assumes, until proven otherwise, that each of these rules is an outcome of more fundamental principles that do not vary across the species. Evidence for this view can be gleaned, first, from the observation that there appears to be a discernible trajectory in moral codes across time, rather than unbounded chaos. A look at history (at least in the modern period) suggests quite strongly that moral reasoning has trended towards greater thought for the common good, more and more equality across groups and individuals, and a broadening of human rights to include more of us than ever before. This indicates that there is a channel constraining the development of our moral sense across time, allowing it to go in particular directions, and not in others.

Second, this universalist perspective can point to the fact that moral arguments are almost universally intelligible to all human beings, even where parties disagree on what is right and wrong, thus implying a shared moral sense. That is, even if we don’t agree with someone about the moral legitimacy of their opinions or their actions, we can understand how they came to hold the view they hold. For example, debates over the abolition of slavery in the United States in the early to mid 19th century invoked similar moral principles whether the proponent was in the abolitionist or the anti-abolitionist camp. The abolitionists sought to demonstrate that holding a person in servitude was inherently wrong, because human beings, irrespective of race or other characteristics, had an inalienable right to freedom, and to live in security and happiness. Similarly, the anti-abolitionists invoked the well-being of the slaves, but instead argued that slavery was more moral than working for a wage (the likely fate of emancipated slaves in a post-slavery society), because a master who owns a person will better look after that person than one who simply rents them for a short period - just as we take better care of a car we own than one we borrow. Laying these arguments out very articulately, prominent anti-abolitionist George Fitzhugh wrote that “three-hundred thousand of the emancipated starved to death in Ireland in a single season […] whilst slaves in all ages and in all countries have been comfortably fed, clad and housed […] for he is too valuable to have his health or strength endangered.” As wrong or disingenuous as these arguments appear to our modern sensibilities, they are still comprehensible to us, and cannot be merely dismissed as gibberish or incoherent rambling.

Similarly, the universality of moral principles can be seen in the way in which human beings feel the need to justify their actions to others, and the relative uniformity of the justifications we seem to invoke. Most obviously, all major powers throughout history have framed their self-interested behaviour in terms of some form of benevolent or benign intent. The British in India spoke of bringing civilization to the savages. Hitler justified the invasion of the Sudetenland on the basis that he was protecting the Germans who lived there from the Czechs. Imperial Japan claimed to be occupying Manchuria in the 1930s in order to bring “earthly paradise” to the Chinese. The United States invaded South Vietnam - killing approximately 3 million people between 1958 and 1975 - to protect its people from “internal aggression” (i.e., peasant collectives arising out of the National Liberation Front, which was extremely popular with the local population) and to “bring freedom and democracy”. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1978 to protect Afghans from Islamic extremists. The Australian government removed indigenous children from their families in order to civilize them… and the list goes on. In each case, morally questionable actions are justified on the basis of some higher moral principle; again, suggesting some deep moral sense, universal to the species.

Assuming that human beings possess a universal moral sense of this sort, it is necessary then to provide an account of the variability that is patently obvious across cultures. An analogy from the study of language is helpful. Like moral reasoning, the fundamentals of language appear to be universal across the species, alongside relatively surface-level differences across different languages and language groups. The study of language therefore differentiates between Principles - rules of syntax that are universal to all human languages - and Parameters - rules of syntax that vary across languages, such that they can be either present or absent (i.e., the parameter can be switched on or off). Principles of language are part of human genetic endowment, and all languages will be constrained by them. Parameters are also genetically determined, but whether they are turned on or off is regulated by the linguistic environment in which a child develops. Similarly, there are likely to be Principles of Morality; that is, universal rules of behaviour across the species, that collectively form the boundaries of permissible moral codes. There are also likely to be Parameters of Morality; that is, rules of behaviour that can be switched on or off as a function of cultural and social learning, thus determining cultural variability in moral codes. Together, the Principles and Parameters of morality would function to account for the deep structure of human moral reasoning, as well as its more surface-level cultural, individual, and temporal variability.

A “Principles and Parameters” perspective on morality logically entails various facts with regard to the trajectory of moral reasoning through time, and the process of consciousness-raising in progressive social movements. Assuming that there are deep principles embedded within the human moral reasoning system, as argued above, it follows that moral progress comes about through a process of discovering those principles; that is, through a process of Moral Discovery. As a first step, the principles must be uncovered through critical thought about the structures of the world, how those structures function, and what they mean for human lives. As a second step, the principles, once discovered, will come to be seen in their broader context, relative to each other, and in relation to the structures of human societies. This will lead to a recognition of the inconsistencies between the principles and the way the world functions, which can engender further moral discovery, as well as motivated attempts to reduce inconsistencies between the nature of the social structures and the principles. Within this framework, consciousness-raising is a process of coming to discover and understand the fundamentals of our moral nature, and adjusting the parameters in order to bring them to their clearest fruition. It is important to note the appropriateness of the term “discovery” here: as with scientific discovery, critical thought leads to the derivation of principles, which are constrained by the reality of the system being explored, which then constrains the possible trajectories of understanding - or in the case of moral reasoning, the possible trajectories for future moral progress. This should be heartening for progressive social movements. Within this framework, consciousness-raising is not a process of persuading people through arbitrary and context-dependent arguments that a certain action or social structure is moral or not, but rather it is a process of helping others discover the principles of their own moral system for themselves, whatever those principles might turn out to be. This is surely an easier task, and one that is more likely to lead to the kind of change envisaged by progressive social movements.

So what might the future of moral discovery hold? As with other discoveries, it is hard to pre-judge, but certain strains of progress will no doubt continue on their existing paths, and others will become obvious as we learn more about ourselves and our moral principles. Third-wave feminism is likely to continue dismantling patriarchal institutions, and to continue its efforts towards decreasing the gap between men and women, in opportunities, wages, and other freedoms. In particular, the moral force of strikes over equal pay - such as occurred in Iceland in October 2016, when women left work 14% earlier than usual to protest against 14% lower wages than men - seems undeniable. Moral arguments for environmental protection have also become more prominent in recent years. The Yasunidos movement in Ecuador, for example, has seen indigenous people petitioning to keep coal and oil from being extracted and burnt for fuel, and the Cochabamba confrontations in Bolivia in 2001 have seen success in preventing the privatization of water resources. Both of these movements invoked the collective good of the planet, and the rights of self-determination of indigenous people as inalienable moral principles. Animal rights movements will also certainly continue to grow in size, as the expansion of the moral circle from humans to other sentient beings seems hard to argue against once the moral principles that guide us have been critically appraised. This will likely entail granting human rights to the Great Apes, and the widespread adoption of vegetarianism and veganism. Similarly, it seems reasonable to predict that a children/teenagers’ movement of some form will arise in schools, as these are quite totalitarian institutions, whose extreme need for obedience and conformity seems quite at odds with our moral senses (in fact, I’ve long been surprised that a children’s or teenagers’ movement hasn’t yet arisen). In the longer term, I think a deeper appreciation of the unjust nature of the wage system, and the corporate concentration of wealth and power will likely come about, of which we can see inklings in the Occupy movements and protests at the Davos conferences. And in the still longer term, I have hope that the process of Moral Discovery will do away with all forms of oppression, persecution, exploitation, abuse, aggression, violence, etc… provided our species survives long enough to achieve these grand aims.