Morality, Law, and the Powerful (Book Notes: Morality Matters)

All human cultures have a morality of some sort, but do they all have the same morality? No, and this has led some to argue that there is no universal morality - that all morality is simply relative to time, place, and culture. Extreme versions of this practically deny morality entirely, which has led to extreme reactions from the other side.

In Morality Matters, Roger Trigg writes:

The alternative to a rational morality claiming a universal applicability has always been control by the powerful, whether that means the wealthy, those able to use the most force or simply those in the majority. Without the rule of law, resting on a moral foundation, bare power will always win. Morality matters, not just because it should govern our personal behaviour and the way we treat others. It should provide the context in which all affairs are conducted, and nations governed. Morality can never be the product of individual whim, or passing fashion. It is the indispensable foundation for any properly ordered society.

Trigg certainly has a valid point here — the absence of morality which is binding on everyone is like the absence of laws which are binding on everyone, and that’s that we end up being ruled by the whim of powerful individuals. On the other hand, Trigg also makes a significant error in that he seems to imagine that the presence of universally binding morality eliminates the rule of the powerful.

Just as the powerful are able to subvert the universal application of laws that are supposed to be universally binding, the same happens with morality. Trigg presents them as if they were mutually exclusive alternatives and that might sound fine in theory, but here in the real world we all know that this just isn’t true. Moreover, it isn’t obviously true that “universal” morality (which isn’t quite defined) is necessary to prevent too much arbitrary rule by the powerful.

A society’s laws aren’t universal, they are restricted to particular times and places. Why shouldn’t moral rules be similar? Why can’t morality be something that can vary just as the laws do? Perhaps there is danger here in that too much variability might open the door wider to subversion by the powerful, but we already know that they can’t be thwarted entirely anyway. Thus, we need to ask whether maintaining a fiction about universal morality really serves our interests or if it serves the interests of the powerful by causing us to think that we are gaining something we aren’t.

 

Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.