Morality Clause from an Existential Perspective
...ed to describe the common wave of thought in Western society that has its roots in Christianity. It is a term to describe what people have learned to be “of course statements.” For example, “is monogamy a natural form of marriage?” “of course!” “are all our important decisions arrived at through the democratic process?” “of course!” “is it bad to kill another human being?” “of course!” In his essay, The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche explores the roots of the words such as “good” and “bad” in the English language. His findings are the basis of the reason why he is against predefined morality and imposed principals. “Good” and “bad” were terms to describe how high an individual was on the social ladder. “Good” meant, rich, noble, clean, and therefore, good. “Bad” meant to describe someone of a lower class, who was dirty, and unchristian. This proves that Judaeo-Christian morality has imposed its distorted religious judgment on Western society. Knowing this, students and other individuals should have the freedom to construst their own sense of precepts without the influence of corrupt religious institutions. Wrapping up this point, we will lastly look at the famous existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, a lifelong companion and teacher of Simone de Beauvoir. In his essay, Being and Nothingness, he explores the idea of an individual living in “bad faith.” What this means, is that the individual allows himself to be defined but how others see him. For example, if a teacher tells a student that the she is a bad student, she may allow herself to be defined as such and, in conclusion, become an even worse student than she is. One can even take an example from the military force: soldiers are taught by their officials that they are only part of a larger whole, fighting for the greater good of their country, and their lives mean nothing compared to their cause. The soldiers learn to become this, to take on the roles laid out for them. They live an existence defined by this. By doing this they are being reduced to an object, that has no freedom. Tying this back with Beauvoir’s theory, if a human is a free individual, a subject, pretending and living like one is an object would be considered bad faith. A student can be reduced to an object living out the roles laid out for him or her if he or she feels that they is expected to be just, loyal, industrious, and benevolent. We will now turn our attention to the second point that argues the elimination of the morality clause. The subjectivity of morals would probably be the most obvious argument against the imposition of defined principals. This idea, however, is not as simple to argue. However, it is safe to say that the idea of morality is subjective. Every decade, the state of humanity changes, along with its idea of right or wrong, justice, democracy, and modernity. It would be naïve to argue that the modern society in which we live in today would be the point of reference of all of history, that we could comfortably judge the state of humanity from the context of today, that we have achieved all there is to achieve in the understanding of existence. Even if we look at cultural geography today, ethical understanding can dramatically change not only from one country to another, but also from one household to another. With this astonishing variety of values, there is little one can do in the attempt to find a common ground. Although the precepts suggested by the morality clause seem universal, one cannot say that these ideas are necessarily good in themselves. Let us elaborate. All of the ideas presented in the act can be used to do evil. For example, love of country could lead to extreme nationalism; justice is not always blind when we gain a deeper understanding on the inside politics of law; industriousness can lead people to lose meaning in their lives and neglect of their children by burying countless hours of their time to their work. Immanuel Kant, an idealist German philosopher in the 18th century, argued in his discourse, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, that the only thing that can be ultimately good is a good will. He states that we cannot judge a person’s righteousness by the outcome of his action. He can very well have a good will yet his action produces an end that was uncalled for. Or rather, a person who has a bad will can produce an end that could eventually lead to a good cause. This can be said for the principals outlined in the act. Therefore, teachers cannot teach students values since the only thing that they can count on is a good will, and a good will cannot be taught. During the Victorian era, schools stressed Judaeo-Christian morality on their students, yet one cannot say that all those who attended school were righteous and obeyed the law. Obviously, inculcating these virtues would not make much difference. The morality clause represents much of what society sees to be a perfect citizen. These virtues are fed to children since they are very little from the parents, teachers, and figures of authority. According to Nietzsche, the “art of mistrust” is the process in which an individual “sees through” authority and understands the deeper mechanisms within the society in which he/she lives in. 20th century sociologist Albert Salomon explains that this is not a modern phenomenon and that for centuries individuals have torn down the fabric of the normative structures of Christendom and in turn the society had developed and progressed. Although one could assume that the goal of the morality clause is to create a future of perfect citizens, it is proved time and time again that a perfect Utopian society would never be able to exist, as there will always be a revolt against an existing government, economy, or society. Fyodor Dostoevsky, a famous Russian novelist of the 20th century, expands on this in his Notes from the Underground, where he explains that a Utopian society is one that will surely fall because of an individual’s desire for freedom. This of course, explains further the impossibility of imposing a subjective set of morals onto a society whose primary interest is their ultimate freedom to choose. As a final critique of the morality clause, one could argue that human nature is predominantly good and th...