Why Humans Resist Just and Logical Moral Rules: The Dilemma of Situational Ethics

Throughout history, humans have struggled with the acceptance of just and logical moral rules. This resistance is multifaceted and involves deep-seated beliefs and behaviors that stem from a desire to avoid accountability and fear of anarchy.

The Human Desire for Anonymity and Backdoor Morality

There are various reasons why individuals resist moral rules, whether they are religious, secular, or agnostic. The core issue often revolves around the human desire to live in a manner that remains untainted by external scrutiny. This can be encapsulated by the biblical concept that 'without law sin abounded.' Without the checks and balances provided by governmental systems to punish the wicked and reward the virtuous, anarchy can ensue.

Historical examples, such as the French Revolution and the rise of various extremist groups, have demonstrated how masses of people can descend into cruelty when there are no moral or ethical guidelines to restrain them.

The Evolution of Moral Definitions

Defining what is 'moral' is a complex task. Today, the standard for moral rules is often replaced by situational ethics. This approach means that what is considered ethical can vary greatly depending on the situational context. The University of Texas, for instance, recognizes the idea that some moral principles may be universal (such as fairness), while others can change based on the specific values of a particular group or time period.

This shift from fixed moral principles to situational ethics reflects a broader trend towards secular ethics where religious traditions no longer hold the same dominant position. Businesses and government agencies now have their own codes of ethics to govern behavior, showing how moral norms are established and enforced in the modern world.

The Impact of Identity Politics on Ethics Training

Over the past 35 years, the author has observed a significant shift in ethics training within the business world. Initially focused on topics like sexual harassment, the scope of training has expanded to cover a wide range of issues that can cause offense or reduce employee performance. While some of these issues are critically important, the increasing influence of identity politics has created a 'sovereign environment' where sensitive topics can be stifled.

This evolution towards ethical relativism, often termed 'moral nihilism,' has led to a situation where even discussing ideas that some find morally objectionable can be problematic. This has resulted in a move from a society that tolerated all behavior, albeit not all humans, to one where moral boundaries are increasingly viewed with disdain.

The Historical Context of Moral Discussion

In the past, people would openly discuss moral laws and the necessity of repentance for violating them. Biblical texts, such as the book of Job, provide a rich history of moral dilemmas and the need for ethical behavior. Job, despite being accused of depravity, had to grapple with the question of righteousness and morality.

The historical context of ethical discussions is crucial in understanding the current resistance to moral rules. The authors and moral leaders of the past often provided frameworks and guidelines for behavior that were grounded in logical and just principles. Today, the challenge lies in re-establishing a common understanding of moral behavior that is both logical and just.

Conclusion

Resisting just and logical moral rules is deeply rooted in human nature and the desire for anonymity and moral flexibility. The shift towards situational ethics represents a broader trend towards relativism and a rejection of traditional moral frameworks. Understanding the reasons behind this resistance is crucial in developing ethical guidelines that can be accepted and adhered to by all.