Simone Weil in the book Oppression and Liberty states “Groups manufacture moralities for their own use, so specific activity is placed outside reach of evil. There is thus the morality of the soldier, the business man and so on whose first article consists of denying it is possible to commit any evil while waging war, doing business, etc. One accepts as an absolute value the specific morality of the social group one is a member of. Ones’ mind is at rest, but morally speaking one is dead.”
Simone Weil’s words have been true since the beginning of civilization through to the current day. Be it a street gang, a political party, or a national government, each has its own moralities that give them the right to do things in the name of that morality. Our country is no exception. And as citizens, we have accepted what we have been, as members we have been “morally speaking" dead. But as we awaken from our own personal sleep, we realize that the groups we belong to have the same collective issues, morally dead because the members no longer question motives and actions, but act without thought according to that group’s morality.
Our challenge is how to awaken our nation, our collective ego, and to start influencing policies that reflect a more thoughtful approach. These new policies can’t be based in absolute moralities. They need to be balanced decisions, accounting for the differences of the groups they are dealing with, whether a city, state, or another nation.
Our goal should be to awaken each collective group, to help each become aware that they have been marching in a trancelike state to the beat of the collective ego. At the same time we must use caution not to do the same thing, to judge based on our own view of right or wrong. By awakening these groups each can then start challenging and influencing decisions made at many levels.
Challenge with thought and love, not with judgement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I can agree that any given group creates it's own morality.
And I'm get the idea of "balancing decisions, accounting for the differences of the groups". But I don't think I'm at the place where I can consider (or weigh) all the various groups' moralities equally.
For example, our culture has come a long way in women's rights. Groups are growing in our nation that have far fewer women's rights. Marriage law in Islamic culture allows a man to divorce his wife, but a wife may not divorce her husband - for any reason. Do we account for that difference? I think a society should be permitted to establish a morality and should not necessarily have to accomodate other groups.
BTW - that example is not hypothetical. We'll see it in the courts soon, as to whether an Islamic marriage contract can be enforced in the U.S. And the legal opinions vary.
Post a Comment