Relative Morality

      This post is dedicated to ALL who have been victimized.


         I have long believed that everything in life is relative, that is to say that what is true and acceptable for me, may not be so for someone else. I feel that this relativism ‘law’ applies to all things, however absurd a view that may be. I am entitled to that view; just as someone else is entitled to refute it. After all, what is an opinion if not blind faith in one’s own intelligence, however right or wrong?

        When speaking of polar opposites, such as right and wrong, one may- or even should-ask if such extremes should even exist.  After all, if everything is relative, and nothing is wholly one way or the other, then surely there can be no extremes. Everything is a grey area. In my mind, not even a purely altruistic person exists, nor do I believe no one person ever alive – now, in the past, or in the future, could ever be fully immoral in every regard. Every ‘evil’ person has good moments, pure moments, and every ‘saint’ has a tendency to want to ‘sin’. In my mind, this is human nature. We cannot be only one way all the time- the human race is too dynamic to stay so unfailingly constant in personality.

         If this be the case- where does morality fit in, why should we be moral creatures, and what exactly does morality mean? Questions like this could puzzle a person if one thinks on it long enough, because, as stated above- these answers vary from person to person…or does it- does it really?

         I am not sure how many of you, my dear readers, are familiar with Emile Durkheim or his work. I am utterly enthralled by him. Emile Durkheim was a sociologist (the father of sociology, actually), and a profoundly intelligent man. He wrote on topics such as suicide, religion, crime, and morality.

        Durkheim believed that people consist of two warring halves. The individual self and the social self. We must give some of our individuality to progress, attend to, and be a part of, the societies we create. 

According to Durkheim  

“The painful character of the dualism of human nature is explained by this hypothesis. There is no doubt that if society were only the natural and spontaneous development of the individual, these two parts of ourselves would harmonize….In fact, however, society has its own nature….Therefore, society cannot be formed or maintained without our being required to make perpetual and costly sacrifices. Because society surpasses us, it obliges us to surpass ourselves, and to surpass itself, a being must, to some degree, depart from its nature—a departure that does not take place without causing more or less painful tensions…” (Elementary Forms [1914] 1973, p. 163).

         In this way, we think, on a basic level, as a whole, or what he calls the collective consciousness. It is not so unlike the Borg from the Star Trek series when you stop to think about it, or a worldwide computer. We are individuals functioning and existing together, creating our moral codes on a whole, cultural scale that can, for the most part, appease everyone and brings us all together for a common goal- social harmony and the idea of justice, regardless of individual opinion. The societal dictates outweigh the dictates of one and to appease the society we must abide by the moral laws therein. 

        Through this process of conforming, while at the same time constructing social morality, one must realize that though morality in and of itself is subjective on an individual level- on a cultural level, basic morality holds true for most people and therefore people within a given society are prone to the same moral ideas, for better or worse. So what exactly is morality? I like to think of morality in the same context that Durkheim defines crime:

“An act is criminal when it offends strong and defined states of the collective consciousness. In other words, we must not say that an action shocks the common consciousness because it is criminal, but rather that it is criminal because it shocks the common consciousness. We do not reprove it because it is a crime, but it is a crime because we reprove it” (Durkheim, [1893] 1933: 80-81).

        If you replace ‘(a) crime’ with immoral, then you have my definition of what exactly morality means to me. When something offends, it therefore has the potential status of ‘immoral’ behavior.


        Now, in one’s life (be it only once or many times over) a person will come into contact with a person or people who takes delight in being offensive in such an intellectual manner as to seem logical, while at the same time proving his or herself to be utterly devoid of all common dignity, decency and morality. Is the person(s) who behave in such a manner sociopathic, trolling the internet; cyber-bullying or bullies other people in general? Should we even care?

        We shouldn't care about the cruel ideas of others, but the sad fact is most people do. The likely answer is that we care because it shocks. People flock to negativity and disgraceful gossip and opinions just as the Romans flocked to the coliseum to watch people and animals be tortured and killed, and why even today when some trauma happens be it physical or emotional, people are apt to witness, rather than act and make the situation better. It’s the shock, the understanding that it is exciting in its misery and it gives us a glimpse of the bloodthirsty part of us that we tamed long ago, but still has a tendency to rear its ugly head when the smell of blood is fresh and near.

         However ‘intoxicating’ such behavior might be (either for perverse pleasure, pride, offense, or what-have-you,) the behavior displayed by the creator(s) of the vulgarity is committing social immorality. Why do I make such an extreme suggestion that the person(s) who seek out others to hurt for spite are socially immoral- because it is a cultural recognition, both in America and abroad, that bullying is wrong, can be considered a crime, and for many- is considered an immoral act against other individuals.

         Such vocal vulgarity against others is tolerated because of free speech, which I defend, even when I feel it best a person not speak at all for the sake of both self-respect and the pain the person(s) inflicts knowingly on others (such as Westboro Baptist Church and Terry Jones from Gainesville Florida). But, with that said, exactly how far can one take free speech? When does free speech turn into hate speech and when does hate speech become a crime? Now, in England, there are laws in place for hate speech, but the defining of these laws are lines I do not know personally. I also know that there are laws, again both in America and abroad, in regards to bullying. I also know that Florida- the state I live in- is one the states that have laws against cyber-bullying. I also believe that the modern day laws need to catch up to modern day problems. The bullying can go across countries, the hate speech can be vile, and the laws are not enough for the socially immoral person(s).

          Please note that I said socially immoral (and even social morality is subject to change with each generation, taking for instance slavery, racial intolerance and the present day civil debate on marriage equality). I do not believe that any person can be utterly despicable in every regard, because, though I believe that people such as this takes pleasure in being a menace to other people (either online, in person, or both) I also do not believe the person(s) responsible to be wholly immoral, evil, or what-have-you. Again, as said in the beginning, I do not believe such singularity exists in the human nature. We all have moments of goodness, just as well all have moments of maliciousness. 

         But the doings of people who seem to do everything possible to make the lives of other people utterly miserable, begs the question:  why do people prey on others, especially over the internet where such attempts seems so cowardly and contemptuous since the person(s) can hide behind their screen and never have to face in person the ones that they slander?

According to Durkheim:

“The totality of moral regulations really forms about each person an imaginary wall, at the foot of which a multitude of human passions simply die without being able to go further. For the same reason—that they are contained—it becomes possible to satisfy them. But if at any point this barrier weakens, human forces—until now restrained—pour tumultuously through the open breach; once loosed, they find no limits where they can or must stop. Unfortunately, they can only devote themselves to the pursuit of an end that always eludes them” (Moral Education, p. 42). 

“The notion of the infinite, then, appears only at those times when moral discipline has lost its ascendancy over man’s will. It is the sign of attrition that emerges during periods when the moral system, prevailing for several centuries, is shaken, failing to respond to new conditions of human life, and without any new system yet contrived to replace that which has disappeared” (Moral Education: [1925] 1961, p. 43).

“Whenever moral rules lack the necessary authority to exert, to a desirable degree, a regulatory influence on their behavior, we see society gripped by a dejection and pessimism reflected in the curve of suicides (Moral Education: [1925] 1961, p. 68)

“During periods when society is disorganized and, as a result of its decadence has less power to exact the commitment of individual wills, and when, consequently, egoism has freer reign—these are calamitous times. The cult of the self and the notion of the infinite go together” (Moral Education, p. 72).

           Perhaps the ego or morality compass has gone astray in people such as this. Maybe the person(s) have a lack of compassion and empathy. Maybe the person(s) needs an ego check and needs barriers desperately. Maybe the person(s) are simply cowardly if hiding behind a computer screen to fill whatever voids, physical constraints, or emotional deprivations that he or she is enduring or has endured. 
           Bullying brings the person(s) empowerment, just as a raping gives the rapist the euphoria of control. So long as the person is given credence, is gaining attention, and getting his or her high through such means of intellectual degradation, it will never cease and the person(s), like the gladiators of old, will have the moment of glory, however vicious.  But never forget, for all who are victimized by those who cause harm that even a gladiator can fall given the proper methods of extinction (such as ignoring, kindness, understanding, getting law enforcement involved, etc…).

         So, even though morality is relative, we are still humans and share common ideas in the barest, most basic of ideologies. Therefore, things such as respect, manners, and proper etiquette will always be something I value, not only in myself, but in others. Those who have little to no social or public morality are not worth my concern.  Morality, though relative, is needed for civil human discourse and daily ‘public’ functioning within a culture. We all have our predispositions to do harm, but we also have predispositions to rise above it. It is called cognitive ability and the evolutionary trait of being able to think critically, subjectively, and socially. It is such a pity when the person(s) behind the neurons and synapses uses the connections within the brain to hinder rather than encourage in productive ways.

       If you have been victimized by those who would do you harm, never let them rule your life- your decisions. Get help. Learn your laws. Please, do not ever let anyone break your spirit.

         I leave you now with a song by Wendy Rule. Enjoy.