The Universality Of Morality

Universal Moral Principles:

How are we to be so sure that moral principles are CATEGORICALLY universal; and not just (circumstantially) universal by fiat? To review: Kant’s Categorical Imperative has two facets.

First: All humans (qua sentient, rational beings) have inherent value; and so must never be treated as a means only, but always as ends in themselves as well (hence society seen as a “kingdom of ends”).

Second: We must be able to universalize the maxim on which we deign to justify any given deed.  (We must be willing to have everyone else in the world justify any of THEIR actions by recourse to the same maxim we are using to justify our own actions.)

In a sense, morality’s universality is BUILT IN. That is: Moral principles are universal BY DEFINITION.

When it comes to sacred doctrine (especially when predicated on “divine command theory”), an arbitrariness is introduced. The supposition is that all of ethics can be boiled to a check-list of dos and don’ts.  It’s as though all of mankind were in kindergarten, and morality could be distilled into a set of simple instructions.  According to this schema, OBEISANCE is seen as the basis for uprightness. The “catch”, as we’ve seen, is that THAT ends up being little other than a function of power structures (i.e. a reflection of the interests of whichever authority has been accorded the most power).

This is a recipe for illiberal (authoritarian) regimes, not for liberal democracy.  Civil society, it turns out, is predicated on individual autonomy.  This is why I use “moral” in a Kantian sense: morality is deontic in nature. (Rectitude has nothing to do with obeying orders.)

This conceptualization can be held in stark contradistinction to instrumental “morality”: the ersatz morality of Machiavellians and Reactionaries (which is to say: the “morality” of those who base right and wrong on utility and/or the “say so” of some anointed authority. This is the “morality” of the wheeler-dealer; and so varies from circumstance to circumstance, as it is subjected to one or another agenda (e.g. currying favor with the powers-that-be, placating an overlord, securing salvation for oneself, etc.)

Here, I hope to show that REAL morality is based on that which is categorically universal–transcending all psychical / social constructs (which are, after all, nothing more than accidents of history).  By contrast, dogma-based “morality” is a faux morality; as it is NOTHING BUT an accident of history.

This fundamental distinction is no more clear than the imperative to counter–through sheer act of will–our inclinations to indulge in tribalism.  For probity is no more a function of collective utility than it is of individual utility.  As Kant pointed out, the only time principles really matter is when they don’t serve one’s own interests–be they communal or personal.  In other words, morality finds purchase primarily when it is inconvenient.

For better or worse, homo sapiens must contend with their evolved (human) nature.  This involves overcoming our proclivity to be tribalistic.  We are naturally predisposed toward tribalism–and, for that matter, toward institutionalized dogmatism–for reasons that have been (mostly) explained by evolutionary psychology.  We are also predisposed to prize utility over all else; as we homo sapiens are eminently pragmatic creatures (and creatures of habit). If X seems to work, we tend to go with X…and stick with it in perpetuity.

Suffice to say: Our inborn psychological template did not evolve to prime us for cosmopolitanism; nor did it prime us to live in an egalitarian global community. Universal human solidarity is something we need to work at; it is not our default setting.

Yet it is with our primally hard-wired “human nature” with which we must contend. Hints of a moral compass are found in virtually every culture that has ever existed: punishing cheaters, enforcing some system of obligatory cooperation, sharing in the fruits of the community’s toil, discouraging deception (and all forms of fraud), etc.  (See Matt Ridley’s “The Origins Of Virtue”.) There are several principles–as well as themes and archetypes–toward which all peoples naturally gravitate. (For more on this, see my essays on “Mythemes.) That we ALL SHARE this “human nature”, then, is what serves as the basis for any ethical framework.

So what of the emergence of such tenets within religious contexts? It is important to ensure we do not draw false conclusions from what happen to be felicitous occurrences. What fundamentalist Christians sometimes refer to as “Christian values” are oftentimes simply UNIVERSAL values / principles that have been attributed to their own creed post hoc.  That is: They are values / principles that Christianity–due to fortuitous historical accident–happens to countenance.

It is here that our own language games often mislead us. Conventional nomenclature may insinuate that such estimable doctrinal points are INHERENTLY Christian (that they have no basis BUT FOR Christianity).  The implication, then, is that anyone embracing such tenets is simply mimicking Christian teaching; and is ultimately forced to GROUND said embrace on Christianity (wittingly or not).  Such casuistry is quite common; yet it is entirely specious.

It is, of course, a salutary accident of history whenever ecumenical doctrine happens to embrace something that is CATEGORICALLY universal.  But such precepts exist independently of any given dogmatic system.  That is to say: The ultimate basis for the purported values is a secular one–and can be articulated as such. The fact that one or another religious community happens to have sanctified those values says nothing about the credence of the over-riding creed. The thing with consecration is that ANYTHING can be consecrated if it happens to fit within the prevailing narrative.

That such underlying principles are based in HUMANITY ITSELF is immediately obvious once we find that Zoroastrians and Tengri-ists and Sikhs and Jains and Hindus and Buddhists and Confucians and Taoists and countless other Oriental traditions (i.e. traditions that have nothing to do with the Abrahamic lore) champion the most vaunted ideals found in the Abrahamic tradition.  Clearly, there is something else going on–something that transcends this or that creed.  For all that we have in common is our human-ness; and so there is a moral compass that resides in all humans qua humans. This is the case regardless of cultural milieu; and holds irrespective of what has or hasn’t been sacralized. It goes for Druids as much as it does for Druze. 

Hence a shared morality is concomitant with our shared humanity; which exists as such independently of the memetic environs in which one happens to find oneself.  (There is a reason that something as basic as “common courtesy” transcends culture.) For, in the end, we are all part of the same community–the omni-tribe known as mankind, working from the same operating system.

Recognition of this fact is the basis for “cosmopolitanism”, a concept that dates back to the 4th century B.C.  The first thinker to put forth this humanistic ideal was the Cynic, Diogenes of Sinope, who coined the term “kosmo-polites” (the basis for the term “cosmopolitan”): citizens not of nations, but of the world. Cosmopolitanism urges us to recognize the equal, INHERENT worth of all human beings.

Zeno of Citium later held that, as rational beings, humans have an ultimate grounds for a common idea of justice / law c. 300 B.C. This was followed by the Stoics, who grounded that worth in (practical) Reason, and our innate capacity to intuit moral principles.  Stoics held that the (global) human community is the source of our most fundamental moral and social obligations; and so it the sine qua non of our highest aspirations.

The capacity for Reason makes us all fellow “kosmo-polites”.  To be fellow humans is, then, to be fellow citizens.  By mapping the existential onto the political, our shared humanity is seen to entail (what is effectively) a global polis. The idea was to define any given person first and foremost as a fellow human.  This is the quintessence of anti-tribalism, and is inimical to Identity Politics.

In the 1st century B.C., Marcus Tullius Cicero of Arpinum then picked up the ideation, though his cosmopolitanism was somewhat mitigated by his proto-nationalistic loyalty to the Roman Republic.  He posited “iustitia” (justice) as symbiotic with “beneficentia” (beneficence).  The basis for this symbiosis was human fellowship, which transcended all tribal affiliations, all socially-constructed boundaries, and any other divisions that tended to Balkanize mankind.  The key was UNIVERSALITY: Humanity was an end in itself.

Cicero’s use of the term, “humanitas” equated kindness with human-ness; and even civilization with humanity itself.  He even pre-dated the parable of the Good Samaritan (told in the Gospels over a century later) with his own message of helping the foreign wayfarer.  In his “De Officiis” (I), Cicero weighed in on philanthropy: “A man who graciously shows the way to someone who is lost kindles a light from his own light.  For his own shines no less because he has lit another’s.”  Cicero was adamantly against avarice and vengeance, so eschewed any ethical system that involved greed (read: material accumulation) or tribal honor (read: retribution).

Cicero went so far as to put forth a Roman theory of “ahimsa”.  In his “De Officiis” (III), he spoke of a single (natural) law that mandates that we never harm others.  Cicero characterizes this over-arching principle as an integral part of the natural order; and thus “the law of peoples” [“juris / ius gentium”].  He even referred to it as “nature’s reason, which is divine and human law.”  The idiom of bringing human law into alignment with divine law isn’t about following orders; it is about an internal synchronicity.  It is based on autonomy, not on heteronomy.  This is precisely what Kant proposed in his “Groundwork For The Metaphysic Of Morals”.

Cicero elaborated on this point: “If nature prescribes that a human being should consider thee interests of a human being, no matter who he is, just because he is human, it is necessary that according to nature, what is useful for all is something in common [“res communis”].  And if this is so, then we are all embraced by one and the same law of nature.  And if that is so, then it is clear that the law of nature forbids us to do violence to anyone else.”  The Jains couldn’t have said it any better.

The bottom line is simply that the human community is a GLOBAL community; so civic duties (that is, standards of justice) are not (ad hoc) tribal, they are (categorically) universal.  Cicero points out that it is inconsistent to hold this principle (ahimsa) for those in one’s in-group (however defined) yet deny it to those in the out-group simply because they happen to be foreigners.  For to countenance such a disparity is to “tear apart the common fellowship of the human kind.”  Here, we see a foreshadowing of Marx’s “Gattungswesen” [“species-being”] (see Appendix 4 of “The Long History Of Legal Codes”).

In the early 1st century A.D., Lucius Annaeus Seneca of Cordoba (“Seneca the Younger”) stated that the human community is “truly great and truly common”.  To find it, “we look neither to this corner nor to that, but measure the boundaries of our nation by the sun.”  In other words, it is a global community.

In the 2nd century, the Roman Stoic, Marcus Aurelius advanced this ideal in his “Meditations” (IV), where he stated: “If reason is common [to all mankind], so too is law.  And if this is common, then we are all fellow citizens.  If this is so, we share a kind of organized polity.  And if that is so, the world is–effectively–a city-State.” Marcus then stated: “As I am a human being, my country is the world.”  In keeping with this ideal, he prized actions performed not in the service of one’s own tribe, but in the service of all mankind.  The scope of concern was the entire human community.  For Marcus, human fellowship trumped tribal demarcations.

The next iteration of the “citizen of the world” ideation was in Immanuel Kant’s “Kingdom Of Ends”. Moreover, Kant revived the “citizen of the world” in his disquisition on international affairs: “Perpetual Peace”.

And we might also note Thomas Paine’s quip that “the world is my country”.  Paine was, indeed, a citizen of the world: the quintessential “cosmopolitan”. In other words, he adhered to Kant’s Categorical Imperative; he embraced what Karl Marx would later dub “species-being”; and he proceeded from what John Rawls would dub the “original position” (whereby one considers another person irrespective of rank, stock, creed, or other tribal affiliation). Socio-economic status doesn’t mater, bloodlines don’t matter, religion doesn’t matter, and nationality doesn’t matter.

We might also recall that “The world is my country, mankind my countrymen” was used as an epigram by William Lloyd Garrison…echoing back over two millennia to Diogenes.

So what of the scenario in which good people–who happen to be religious–attribute their goodness to doctrinal fidelity? Here’s the thing: In order for sacred texts to work, one must bring to bear one’s own moral intuitions (i.e. that which inheres within us ALREADY).  From birth, one possesses the wherewithal to intuit moral truths before one even opens the book; for that is the only way the book can fulfill its purpose. {16} So, in a way, by attributing their good nature to their religiosity, such people aren’t giving themselves enough credit.

The upshot is that our morality exists independently of the scriptures that some claim we all need for said morality.  At the end of the day, the most that a sacred text can do is serve as a HEURISTIC–a handy pedagogic device that conveys an important message to those who are most persuaded by compelling narratives. (Dry, turgid disquisition tends not to the captivate in quite the same way. We humans are suckers for a good story.)

But what of the deficiencies in our human nature (our penchant for tribalism, dogmatism, idolatry, and immediate gratification). Today, our highest endeavors ask us to live beyond some of our design constraints.  (One might say that the possibility-space dictated by those constraints is hampered by the “lower functions” of our brain.)  What may have made perfect sense–practically-speaking–many thousands of years ago (e.g. the embrace of zany superstitions) no longer attains.  This is especially the case once morality is taken into account–as mother nature is amoral; and the universe is indifferent to what is and isn’t “humane”.

In a nutshell: Our most primordial drives do not necessarily inform the best way forward (esp. in the modern world).  Such “primal instincts” have everything to do with what was pragmatic in pre-civil environs; and not much to do with what is objectively moral.  Now that civil society is the standard to which we aspire, many of our primally-hardwired predilections must be over-ridden.  How? By making use of our critical faculties. That can only be done pro-actively (i.e. via mental discipline, not to mention sheer will-power).  We have the capacity to invoke the better angels of our nature; but that take a concerted effort. And NONE of that involves obeying orders.

Religion–by its very nature–can do nothing in the service of this enterprise.  Recourse to a Reactionary mindset (whereby one is inextricably wed to “received wisdom”) is doomed to fail if our ultimate goal is universal human solidarity. For–due to different accidents of history–each group invariably “receives” different “wisdom”.

The laudable principles so often touted by Judeo-Christian apologists, which they ascribe to Mosaic law, are far from exclusive to Mosaic law. {2}  They are, it turns out, universal; as they derive from basic insights available to all human beings–irrespective of circumstance (and thus across time and space).  In other words, they categorically transcend culture; and so are not merely the byproducts of this or that sequence of historical contingencies.

Such universality is illustrated by the incidence of certain tenets in alternate traditions.  Behold the five “vratas” of Jainism:

• Don’t lie
• Don’t steal
• Don’t engage in sexual indiscretion
• Don’t harm any sentient creature
• Don’t covet that which others have

As we see: honesty, fairness, fidelity, kindness, and temperance are prized; while things like deception, theft, betrayal, cruelty, and cupidity are eschewed. This is ALSO illustrated by the five moral tenets (“sin” / “sila”; viz. a code of conduct for upright living) of Theravada Buddhism:

• Don’t lie
• Don’t steal
• Don’t cheat
• Don’t harm others
• Don’t become inebriated

Ring any bells?  Such proscriptions should sound familiar to Occidental (and Muslim) ears.  The “catch” is that NONE of this is predicated on a belief in the Abrahamic–or in ANY–deity.

Indeed, these tenets are indicative of HUMANITY; they are not the exclusive provenance of a particular tribe / legacy.  They can even be found in myriad ethical systems that predate the Axial Age.  When we look at the principle tenets of Buddhism (listed above), we find everything addressed that fetishists of the “Judeo-Christian” tradition love to brag about: not harming one’s fellow man (“ahimsa”), self-discipline / self-restraint (“dharma”), and all the rest.  The ancient Greeks spoke of “agape” (universal love) and “enkrateia” (mental discipline).

Probity, then, is not predicated on any specific religious creed. And as for wisdom (what the ancient Greeks dubbed “arete”), we are dealing with something that each and every human can cultivate, of his own accord, by his own devices. In his Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle pointed out that certain things are intelligible to any and all  human beings, irrespective of any differences of language / culture–as we are all, ultimately, HUMANS.  “One can see in one’s travels to distance countries the experiences of recognition and affiliation that link every human being to every other human being.”  This is the basis for The Good, which is not a product of this or that culture; as it CATEGORICALLY TRANSCENDS all social constructs.

Clearly, such tenets resonate with virtually everyone around the world, irrespective of cultural milieu, as they stem from moral intuitions with which all humans are equipped.  Kant called this innate capacity the “divine law within”. (Note that each of the above strictures is a corollary of the Categorical Imperative.) Evolutionary psychology has demonstrated that such moral intuitions are innate; which is to say that they are categorically–rather than just incidentally–universal.  This explains why certain tenets crop up over and over again, in unrelated social contexts, across the epochs…and around the world (see Dan Sperber’s “Religion Explained”).

Certain insights transcend culture; so to hold that moral insight is the result of ANY ONE culture is fallacious–not only in theory, but in terms of historical fact.

That each of these estimable strictures is recognized by any sane person is testament to the fact that the moral intuitions–especially of fairness–are primally-hardwired into the brains of homo-sapiens; which accounts for the UNIVERSALITY of moral principles.  It has nothing to do with the existence of this or that dogmatic system.

Hence: It’s not that civil society is built on Judeo-Christian tenets; it’s that THESE Judeo-Christian tenets are reflections of a moral compass that dwells in everyone–independently of the existence of Judaism, Christianity, or ANY OTHER religion.

As I show in my essay on “The Long History Of Legal Codes”: When it comes to promoting civil society, some of the earlier codes actually do a BETTER job than Mosaic law.  Meanwhile, the moral system found in, say, Buddhism does not promote collective punishment NOR does it urge followers to visit the sins of the father on his descendants.  As we saw earlier, Judaic lore PRESCRIBES such atrocities, on both counts.

As it turns out, the Mosaic decalogue (the terms of a fabled compact between the Hebrews and the Abrahamic deity) probably culled much of its material from ancient Greek thought–notably: the “Chrysa Epe” [“Golden Verses”] propounded by the Greek philosopher, Pythagoras of Samos in the 6th century B.C. (just as the Babylonian scribes were about to attend to the codification of Abrahamic lore during the Exilic Period).  Such precepts included honoring one’s oath and honoring one’s parents.

Pythogoras discouraged covetous-ness and stinginess; and cautioned people against seeking luxury. He also enjoined people to “observe justice in all your actions”…while avoiding acrimony with one’s fellow man.  He added: “Take heart; the race of humans is divine.”  In other words: The notion that we are all created in god’s image did not begin with the Torah. {23}

Notably, Pythagoras stated something that is NOT found in Mosaic law: “Of all the rest of mankind, make him your friend who distinguishes himself by his virtue.”  This may well have been the first statement against tribalism.  It certainly had nothing to do with Faith in a particular deity; or with bloodlines.  This statement (which urged us to judge people by the content of their character rather than by tribal affiliation; i.e. ethnicity) antedated Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech by 25 centuries.

Pythagoras also admonished everyone to avoid envy, gluttony, sloth, sensuality, and anger.  (All this should sound familiar.)  And what rewards might one look forward to should one do all this?  The Ionian philosopher concluded his verses with the promise that, after leaving one’s mortal body, one would arrive in the (celestial) aether; and thereby enjoy immortality.  For those who heed these guidelines, “death shall have no dominion over you.”

Pythagoras even referred to the godhead, Zeus (cum “Jupiter” in Roman mythology) as “Our Father” in the heavens; though worshipping said deity was not seen as the basis for moral conduct.  It was seen as a PRAGMATIC matter whether or not one opted to appease the gods, as currying favor with them augured better fortune.  Regardless of one’s stead in the eyes of the gods, ethics remained ethics.

These moral themes, then, are timeless; which is to say that they are not predicated on any particular tradition.  Moral principles transcend culture; which is to say that they are not contingent on any one accident of history (that is: any particular dogmatic system, which is merely a social construct).  To suppose that such themes began at Mount Sinai is to countenance farce.

When considering this point, we might bear in mind that Pythagoras likely commanded the world’s largest cult following in “the West” (a quasi-mystical movement based on the preachments of a prophet-like figure) prior to the Roman Empire.  So his influence surely reverberated throughout the lands in which the embryonic Christianity eventually took hold.

And what of existential matters?  When it came to seeking deliverance via invocation of the divine, Pythagoras weighed in thus (referring to the “sacred nature” of the world): “By the healing of your soul, you will deliver it from all evil, from all affliction.” And how shall we mere mortals glean this vital wisdom?  “Examine all things well.  Leave yourself to always be guided by the understanding that comes from above.”  So far as Pythagoras was concerned, it was self-discipline (seen as a “god-given” guidance) is what shall “hold the reins” of our wills. This brings to mind Kant’s profession that nothing instilled him with more awe than the starry heavens above him and the divine law within him.  That spark of divinity–nay: the moral compass–is innate to our nature. In other words: It is within all of us; as it is part of our humanity.

To reiterate: These are universal themes.  It is the height of conceit to suppose that any one tradition INVENTED them–for certain people at a discrete point in time. So everything that supplicants in the Abrahamic tradition extol about their own doctrines actually PRECEDED said tradition.  In other words: There is nothing in the Abrahamic traditions worth lauding that did not already exist–that is: exist INDEPENDENTLY of such traditions. 

We might even go further.  Those who became smitten with Mosaic law during Antiquity would have been wise to heed Pythagoras’ other exhortations–as with:

• Do not ever let any man–either by his words or by his deeds–seduce you [that is: hoodwink you via wiles and charm].
• There are many kinds of reasoning–both good and bad–among men; so neither admire them nor reject them too hastily.
• Consult and deliberate before you act so that you may not commit foolish acts.  For it is the mark of a miserable man to speak and act without reflection.
• Never do anything you do not understand.  Learn all you ought to know; and by that means you will lead a fulfilling life.
• After having gone to bed, never allow sleep to close your eyelids until you have examined all your actions of the day by your reason.

In other words: Think for yourself.  This was Immanuel Kant’s clarion call, “Sapere Aude!”  It is what Thomas Paine meant when he stated that “my mind is my own church.” And–here’s the clincher–it was all articulated by a PAGAN before the (Judaic) Babylonian scribes had so much as put their first verse on parchment.

All of this is–indubitably–sage advice: Beware of con-men; be judiciously open-minded when confronted with other views; engage in critical reflection before acting; rather than being presumptuous, be perspicacious, and always double-check to see if you might be mistaken; question your own convictions.  NONE of these entreaties are authoritarian in nature.  NONE of it involved the weaponization of fear. NONE of it engendered delusive thinking or proffered false hope.  No threats of eternal damnation were needed.  There was not an iota of either tribalism or dogmatism involved.

Alas.  In Judeo-Christian tradition, things are shown to be even more fatuous when it comes to epistemology.  How so?  Everything in Abrahamic doctrine is antithetical to autonomy in the Kantian sense.  Religiosity is, after all, based on heteronomy to one degree or another.  Thus it INVARIABLY involves groupthink, as well as deference to authority.  This is unavoidable; as religion is institutionalized dogmatism with a tribalistic bent. In keeping with this, not a single line in either the Bible or the Koran enjoins one to think for oneself. (Repeated exhortations to “use your reason” in the Koran a empty rhetorical flourishes.)

In the final analysis, religiosity is–at best–a flimsy prosthesis for morality; for there is nothing about piety that behooves one to engage in critical inquiry (especially when doing so is bound to bring “received wisdom” into question).

To recapitulate: Piety is not a matter of either erudition or compassion; it is sheerly a matter of compliance / conformity.  The fact of the matter is that the universe operates exactly how we might expect it to if NONE of the world’s religions’ antiquated dogmas were true; and no tribe had an exalted status in the grand cosmic scheme.  As it turns out, dogmatism and tribalism are inimical to probity, not prerequisites for it. {3}

Relativism in inimical to global human solidarity. Cosmopolitanism is based on a recognition of UNIVERSALS (i.e. that to which we all have access).  After all, universal moral principles are not mere psychical / social constructs; they are features of Reality, and so transcend all tribal division.

In “The Theory Of Moral Sentiments” (1759), Adam Smith pointed to impartiality, not bias toward one’s own interests, as the basis for one’s participation in the demos.  This entailed mutual respect between oneself (or one’s own tribe, as the case may be) and others (p. 86, 139).  He championed social responsibility even as he reserved respect for individual autonomy.  He recognized that each person’s internal moral compass (assuming well-honed moral intuitions) could be his guide (p. 233).  In other words, freedom of conscience was symbiotic with civic-mindedness; and this is in not undermined by measures taken to ensure the commonweal.

In the 1830’s, Arthur Schopenhauer formulated his own version what Karl Marx would later dub “Gattungswesen”: “Menschenliebe”, which involves—among other things—seeing oneself in all other humans.  That means, Schopenhauer averred, embracing mankind as a unity, of which one is a part.  The ramifications of this are profound.  Schopenhauer, like Smith before him and Marx after him, envisioned a globalized compassion (via an all-encompassing sphere of empathy, made possible by the dissolution of factionalism).

As we have seen, Karl Marx of Trier {45} echoed Kant’s Categorical Imperative with is ideation of “species-being”: The man who fails to live according to species-being lives “in civil society where he acts simply as a private individual, treats other men as means, degrades himself to the role of a mere means, and becomes the plaything of alien powers” (The Marx-Engels Reader; p. 34).  Clearly, Marx prized individual autonomy AND the mandate that all others be treated as sovereign beings (thus: of inherent, not merely instrumental, value).

The question arises: Do we live in a society of atomized, self-serving actors (every man for himself, devil take the hindmost) or of “citizens” (we’re all in this together)?  One is a “citizen” insofar as he is an active participant in civil society, concerned with–and working toward–the public good.  For Marx, even as he championed Kantian autonomy, the citizen saw himself as a member of a community (call it a “demos” or a “proletariat” or simply the rank and file), and so embraced his inter-connectedness with his fellow man.  Hence: thinking for himself, but not ONLY OF himself. Kantian autonomy does not preclude civic-mindedness; it demands it. Marx referred to the condition in which “public affairs” became “the general affair of each individual”; and thus indicted “everything…that expressed the separation of the people from community life” (ibid.; p. 45).

How are we to construe Marx’s attitude toward religiosity? When Marx argued against anti-Semitism (spec. against Bruno Bauer), he wanted to make clear that he was not doing so because he was Jewish.  The matter wasn’t personal; nor was it tribal; it was a matter of honoring universal principles from the point of view of a human (that is, from what Schopenhauer had called the “Weltknoten” and Rawls later called the “original position”).  So far as he was concerned, he would have been saying the same thing had he been any other ethnicity.  Thus he indicted anti-Semitism (and Bauer in particular) from the perspective of an everyman.  Marx’s point was simply that the emancipation of the Jews was ultimately—like the emancipation of ANY oppressed / marginalized community—a matter of HUMAN emancipation.

When it came to species-being, the controversial point of contention (at the time; and, to some degree, to the present day) was that emancipation isn’t accomplished by making it about any given religion or any given nation.  It must be a universal endeavor; which is simply to say that it must have as its foundation a common ground, across all peoples.  Insofar as someone deigned to undertake such an endeavor on tribalistic terms, the person was embarking on a fool’s errand.

Marx implicated BOTH Judaism AND Christianity in the depredations of capitalism (hyper-consumerism, commercialism gone haywire, rent-seeking, and all the rest).  Such complicity was a matter of RELIGIOSITY, not of ethnicity.  (He was actually harsher toward Christians than toward his fellow Jews.)  Marx was against any kind of tribalism; and so was opposed to (what is now called) identity politics.  For him, a cosmopolitan approach was the best way to rid the world of bigotry—be it anti-Semitism or any other form of racism that plagued human society.

While Marx was against religionism qua tribalism, he viewed religiosity as a personal choice.  The aim, then, was to relegate religiosity to the private sphere; as Faith was a matter of individual prerogative.  Meanwhile, emancipation is a goal that everyone shares; so is a public matter.  The point was for everyone—irrespective of ethnicity—to transcend their religious affiliations, and embody species-being.  In a sense, cosmopolitanism was what would vanquish the duel dysfunctions of tribalism and socio-economic injustice; as he saw them as both stemming from a lack of species-being.

The discourse has since become somewhat muddled.  Recently, right-wing expositors have come to deride cosmopolitans as “globalists” (alternately referred to as “internationalists”).  What is ironic is that it is the RIGHT WING that supports the interests of trans-national corporations (as corporate power is, by definition, a right-wing phenomenon).  What such polemicists seem not to understand is, in their zeal to combat some chimerical cabal (with maniacal plans to control the world), they end up supporting the very thing they decry: imperialism.  As is often the case, people end up being bamboozled by their own Orwellian terminology. {46}

As discussed earlier, John Rawls captured this idea with the “original position”, which puts all human beings on the same footing.  (Recall that Rawls’ heuristic for impartiality was a “veil of ignorance”, whereby one comes to any moral issue exclusively as a human dealing with fellow humans.  By doing this, all accidents of history are controlled for, and thus abstracted from.)  And so it goes: One is to think of all matters strictly AS A HUMAN, not as a particular person in this or that circumstance, with this or that personal interest, or with this or that (socially-constructed) identity. {26}

Much of this has to do with maintaining consistency of (the application of) standards for everyone.  “If it is permissible for me/us to do it, then it must be okay for everyone else to do it too.  If it is wrong for you to do it, then it is wrong for me to do it as well.”  This echoes the facet of Kant’s Categorical Imperative that uses the universalization of maxims as a litmus test. And it shows why tribal “Exceptionalism” and “identity politics” are morally bankrupt. {27}

So why does ANYONE succumb to cultic thinking, whereby a sanctified dogmatic system is seen as absolute? People CRAVE (the impression of) certainty; even if it’s just the illusion of certainty.  Those bedazzled by sacred doctrine / texts are those who are persuaded that the only way to be sure of anything is if it was in holy writ (handed down from “on high” by an unimpeachable source).  In other words, they are convinced that “truth” is simply a matter of having been written in this or that book (a topic I explore at length in “The History Of Sacred Texts”).

Such beguilement is made clear by the challenge in the Koran (37:154-157, 46:4, and 68:37), wherein doubters are chided: “If what you claim is true, then produce the scriptures in which it is written!”  The idea, then, is that if it is not to be found in a book, then one has no right to assert it.

Once bibliolatry takes hold, the prospect of figuring things out on one’s own–and thus gleaning NEW knowledge–is not even considered.  Ergo the ONLY wisdom is RECEIVED wisdom. Yet the rationalization “because [insert deified figure or holy book here] says so” is a cop-out of the highest order; not to mention a case of epistemic narcissism (wether on the level of the individual or the collective).

Yet we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge that this wonderfully straight-forward modus operandi has appeal for the simple-minded and mentally lethargic. “What’s the answer to [insert pressing question here]?”  Simply proclaim whatever answer that has been decreed.  When justification is requested, one need only point to a specific passage in the designated tract: “Well, you see, it says HERE on page eleven…”  Such dereliction of intellectual integrity–and of moral responsibility–stems from what might be called the “Refer To Page Eleven” syndrome. 

As Voltaire aptly put it: Sacred scripture “is what fools have written, what imbeciles commend, what rogues teach, and young children are made to learn by heart.” Indeed, “Refer To Page Elven” syndrome demonstrates how obsequiousness easily translates to fatuity.  For it is no secret that such a craven approach to “wisdom” works especially well on the gormless.

As we saw earlier, those upholding Abrahamic lore as the ultimate basis for “good” and “right” have no metaphysic of morals; they have only a fanciful theology touting divine command theory–ALL of which can be boiled down to: “Because X said so.”

Confusion invariably sets in once the designated tenets–whatever they might be–are couched in a narrative framework.  For such tenets are invariably expressed idiomatically–leaving room for plenty of hermeneutic chicanery.  Therefore it is important to distinguish between principles themselves and the idiom in which they happen to be expressed.  (If one uses the idiomatic expression “god willing”, it does not necessarily mean that one is positing a supernatural entity with agency–motives, sentiments, agendas–which dictates everything that happens in the world.)

Ideals are typically articulated via a compelling–and captivating–narrative vehicle, as homo sapiens are story-telling creatures.  While myth can be a handy didactic tool (and sometimes even the best way for understanding certain things), myth PER SE is not required to promulgate moral principles (say, human rights)…or even to engender something as elementary as common decency.  Myths are simply compelling narrative vehicles; which is why provocative caricature–or even a fantastical allegory–can serve useful pedagogic–nay, propagandistic–purposes.  As any charismatic leader knows, the best way to move an otherwise complacent audience is to titillate.

But what of EVIL?  It should be noted that this foreboding ideation has different incarnations.  In the Manichean sense (as found in, say, Christianity and Islam), it refers to a nefarious cosmic force lurking somewhere “out there”, waiting to “get us”.  This comes in handy when trying to account for otherwise inexplicable tragedy–plagues, famines, floods, social turmoil, etc.  Why do mishaps happen, why do people get sick, why is the land fallow, why was our side defeated in battle?  Something sinister must be afoot. And we must have fallen out of favor with the god(s).

And when it comes to human behavior, it is a colloquial way of conveying a wholly human phenomenon: malice (be it perfidy, or just general ill will).  More than merely heedlessly immoral (whereby one contravenes a moral principle due to carelessness or a lack of self-discipline), the colloquialism refers to a deliberate attempt to do harm to others.

“Evil” is not just a loaded buzz-term; it is a catch-all ideation. The former sense of “evil” is part of a spurious cosmogony; the latter sense of the term pertains to an eminently natural phenomenon.  Both are consummate with the positing of an ostensibly objective moral foundation; but only the latter can REALLY BE based on objective grounds.  For, insofar as dogmatic thinking is involved, the assessment is based on social / psychical constructs; and so is not REALLY objective.  In other words: Such a claim of universality is itself dogmatic–which is to say: it is purported to be universal by fiat.  The illusion of objectivity suffices when the dogmatically-inclined are searching merely for the satisfaction it confers on the believer. (The ILLUSION OF certainty is typically enough to slake the craving for certainty.)

As we’ve seen, universal principles REALLY ARE “sub specie aeternitatis” rather than products of historical accident; and so exist as they are irrespective of how we might happen to think about them, or whether or not we even acknowledge them.

Our innate capacity to intuit (universal) moral principles was first addressed by Baruch-cum-Benedict Spinoza.  Since Kant’s “Groundwork For The Metaphysic Of Morals”, much work has been done on the evolutionary psychology of morality–as with Marc D. Hauser’s “Moral Minds” and Robert Wrights’ “The Moral Animal”.  (See also Matt Ridley’s “The Origins of Virtue” and Michael Gazzaniga’s “The Ethical Brain”.)

As it turns out, morality does not depend on ANY PARTICULAR dogmatic system; or, for that matter, on ANY dogmatic system…be it a traditional religion or, say, the cult of political correct-ness. {30}  To take it even further, this depends on the rejection of any and all dogmatic schema.  I end here with one of Karl Marx’s more famous metaphors:

“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.  The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that needs illusions.  The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which is religion.  Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain; not so that man will wear the chain without any fantasy or consolation, but so that he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower.”

CONCLUDING REMARKS:

Friedrich Nietzsche once noted that “all religions bear traces of the fact that they arose during the intellectual immaturity of the human race.”  He added that such contrivance occurred before the human race “had learned the obligations to speak the truth.”  In other words: Lack of sapience was not the only problem; lack of integrity was another.

In spite of all this, religionists continue to be impelled by the most stubborn kind of wishful thinking.  As I hope to have shown, religion-based “morality” is an ersatz morality.  It is, at best, a prosthetic for our moral intuitions (in the same way it serves as a prosthetic for genuine spirituality).

Moreover, the universal penchants for tribalism and worshipping a deity do not have anything to do with morality per se.  Something else is going on–something that has nothing to do with “Western” values…or with any particular Faith tradition.

Genuine morality is predicated on neither tribalism nor dogmatism.  We do not need to read ANY sacred text to know that certain things are good and other things are bad.  More to the point: That an assertion is made in this or that text is not an objective basis for that assertion.  Good people do good things BECAUSE it’s the right thing to do, not because a book happened to make them aware of the fact; and certainly not because they’re following orders.

From Spinoza’s “Ethics” to Immanuel Kant’s three Critiques to Thomas Paine’s “Rights Of Man” to Derek Parfit’s “Reasons and Persons” to Peter Singer’s “Writings On An Ethical Life”, it is plain to see that the most profound moral insights have been secular.  When seeking a solid foundation for morality, we are far better off reading Kant’s “Groundwork For The Metaphysic of Morals” than, well, ANY religious scripture.  For the Categorical Imperative gives us far more insight into how an objective ethical framework exists than does a litany of decrees issued by a celestial monarch.  A deontic approach to morality, not the willingness to obey the commands of this or that authority, is what we mean by rectitude.

As we’ve seen, the evolution of human society has been a matter of MOVING BEYOND sacred doctrines; as such evolution has been a matter of moving beyond institutionalized dogmatism.  How could this possibly be?  Universal moral principles–by definition–transcend culture; and that is precisely why they are so important.  It is their UNIVERSALITY that makes them relevant for everyone, everywhere, at all times.  They attain irrespective of circumstance.  And they are available to all of us via our moral intuition, which inheres in the intelligent primates known as homo sapiens. {42}

In his “Human Rights As Politics And Idolatry” (p. 7), Michael Ignatieff put it well when he noted: “Human rights is the only universally available moral vernacular that validates the claims of women and children against the oppression they experience in patriarchal and tribal societies.  It is the only vernacular that enables dependent persons to perceive themselves as moral agents and to act against practices…that are ratified by the weight and authority of their cultures.”

Probity has nothing to do with obeisance.  Piety, then, is counterfeit probity. In the end, morality is grounded in what Marx dubbed “gattungswesen”, whereby we maximize our own humanity…even as we embrace our shared humanity.  Such is the perspective of Thomas Paine had when he stated: “The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.”