Rage Against the Machine

Emotion is to the organism as morality is to society. Both emotions and morality act as a guide towards actions in the best interests of the appropriate bodies. Neither morality or emotion however are able to act as a comprehensive informant of the best course of action, largely because of the complexity and difference of life now as when compared to that of the very first humans. Indeed emotion and morality are often at war with one another guiding towards different actions. It becomes even more complicated and chaotic when emotions are sparked that are based on morality such as guilt over a selfish action. The conflict of internal opinions is not helped by the fact that morality is shifting all the time as society evolves. There is no solid grounding on which to work, it becomes easier to look to the rules of society for moral guidance than it is to reason ones self as to what is best for society. The law safeguards against most kinds of immoral action and acts a little like a stopping block for many peoples moral compass. There is a grey area both sides of the law, one of legal things that are immoral, or more precisely detrimental to society, and on the other of legal things which are moral or certainly of no detriment to society.

As a brief aside I think that law should be much more open to interpretation rather than attempt to be precise and all encompassing. We would likely be a more moral people if we were to allow a jury the trust and freedom to assess what is right and what is wrong for each specific situation that arises rather than following the letter of the law. People would have to think more about right and wrong rather than what loopholes they can find in the system. This would mean that both society as a whole was more morally aware and that justice would be more appropriate in the courts.

So returning to the conflict of emotional and moral impetus towards action it is hard to say which will win out in any given situation for any individual person. Which drive wins will depend on so many things from mood, to beliefs, to will power, to previous experience and so forth. It is far more appropriate to look at it on a macro scale rather than at a personal level where we can make some much safer assertions. The first safe assertion being that a higher proportion of people will perform an act detrimental to society if it is legal than they would the same act if illegal. In practise this is not always the case, I believe the UK has a higher per capita use of illegal drugs than other European countries where they are legal however I would suggest this trend is down to other social differences as other anomalies would also be.

When faced with a choice that is beneficial to the individual there will be emotions promoting that action, when there may be some detriment to others there will be some morality opposing that action. The tie breaker in such situations may well be whether the action is permissible by society or not. We get very angry with individuals and groups of people who are seen to do immoral things however I cannot lay too much blame at their feet. It is the system which is at fault, the people merely fill the roles society lays out to be occupied. It is almost always the system which is to blame for the problems in society, from crime rates, to the recent financial crisis to political corruption. It is not the greed of the bankers who caused the financial crisis, it is the relaxed and unsustainable policies controlling the finance sector that are the real cause. You could put the most moral upstanding people in those positions who may refuse to do certain things on principle however the demand placed on them by the rest of society would quickly change their methods or see them replaced by others with less scruples.

Big companies and rich people would be foolish not to seek the best ways to reduce expenditure through taxation and expenses loopholes. It is not done because these people are immoral but because the people have a natural drive for self interest and have that drive condoned by society. The competition so desired from capitalism ensures that every loophole will be exploited by industry as those that don't will fall by the way side over time. It is not our duty to castigate those that legitimately take immoral actions in their own interests for we would likely do the same. It is our duty to safeguard against ever being in that position by changing the system so no such position exists.

Legislating against exploits in the system is one way to improve society however it is only part of a more general method towards improving society which is to align the emotional and the moral responses in people. This means by way of incentive and disincentive making each choice an individual might face have an option that is both in the best interests of the individual and of the society simultaneously. There is a lot of misdirected anger floating about the societies of the world today, we like to have things to blame and we seem to have a preference for these things being people. Our anger would be much better use if directed at the system which lead to these events rather than the unfortunate people having to work within a faulty system.