Right action

Over the past few years as the Government settled into office, there has much discussion about morality – or conversely and more frequently, its lack in governance and in the rest of society. In Government, the predilection for corruption has astounded even its loyalists, while in society, the murders and general violence continue unabated. The solutions or at least the approaches to address this moral decline have taken two forms – encoding morality into law then seeking enforcement through legal sanctions and through the creation of institutions that herd individuals into approved behaviour.
But these approaches have revealed fundamental flaws in their implementation. We have enacted so many laws to reduce stealing, for instance, but we would be hard put to claim they have had any noticeable effect on stealing of one sort or another. Currently, there is the debate as to whether the laws on child molestation have deterred any paedophiles. On the governmental front, it appears that members spend more time trying to subvert the rules than on following them. We can point to the recent case of cocaine being pilfered by Policemen, who are members of the institution dedicated to preventing such actions.
So what are we to do? One approach, in a sense, would have us look backwards – or even go backwards. Our present framework for judging morality focuses on rules that we are supposed to follow. In one scenario, our duty to act in a particular manner is defined a priori – say in accordance to the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant, and the subsequent rules enforce the prescribed behaviour. The other approach – popularised by Jeremy Benthan – would have us act so as to increase the overall happiness of humans. Together these “Enlightenment” ideas summarise the present liberal approach to desirable action. Both lead to an exaltation of the individual and his/her rights.
But before these approaches, there was the Greek view, popularised by Aristotle, that we were supposed to live a good or virtuous life. Being good, according to Aristotle, consists in a creature (whether plant, animal, or human) acting according to its nature – its telos, or purpose. Each individual must practise and cultivate virtuous behaviour. The telos for human beings is to generate a communal life with others; and the good society is composed of many independent, self-reliant groups. Ancient Indians also held to this ideal and called it “Dharma”.
In the past few decades, this ancient approach has been given new life by the philosopher Alisdair MacIntyre, with his book, “After Virtue”. The most damaging consequence of the Enlightenment, for MacIntyre, was the decline of the idea of a tradition within which an individual’s desires are disciplined by virtue. And that means being guided by internal rather than external “goods”. Today, we have the result that everyone looks out for Number One, and maximises what he can acquire for himself, by any means necessary.
The best option in this time of great moral crisis is a return to the virtue ethics of the ancients. Moral rules are too abstract and too rigid, and it is difficult to apply them to complex situations and decisions. If we each are motivated from within to be a better person, then no matter what institution we are placed in, we have a greater chance of doing the ‘right thing’. Conversely, no matter how well we design the institution, non-virtuous members will look for and find ways to subvert those rules.
Aristotle talked about the ‘middle way’ – avoiding extremes not only in the big things but in everyday life. Buddhism encourages ‘mindfulness’ whereby we try to always have on our minds, the consequences of our actions. Moral behaviour can begin with the good practice of a profession, trade, or art: cutting cane or cutting hair. In other words, the virtues necessary for human flourishing are not a result of the top-down application of abstract ethical principles, but the development of good character in everyday life. Let us give it a try in Guyana.