Morality (Part 2)

Chapter from “Culture Is Not Your Friend: Sex, Death, Drugs & Madness”.

Why Does So Much Of Our Morality Focus On Sex ?

Sex is an area of life with an enormous amount of taboos, and subject to strict social control. But why are the rules surrounding sex more likely to arouse strong responses in people when broken, then say property rules? Why is preserving virginity more important than avoiding theft? Share on X 

We can take the long route to an answer – study all the different religious aspects, cultural aspects and so forth, or we can get to the evolutionary root of the matter, the prime concern that lies behind all these: paternity.

If a woman has a child, she knows that it is hers. If a man is told that he has fathered a child, he cannot be certain that it is his. Share on X The woman may have had sex with someone else, which means he could end up raising another man’s child. He could be spending his scant resources, time and effort on taking care of someone who does not carry his genes. 

Before the days of DNA testing, paternity could not conclusively be established, so an effort had to be made to reduce the likelihood of a man raising a child that was not his own. This was done by controlling female sexual behaviour. Hence, the huge difference in how males and females are allowed to express their sexuality. 

Promiscuous men are given a pat on the back and are told that there is,

“Nothing wrong with sowing your wild oats, son.” 

A promiscuous woman is likely be met with disapproving looks and remarks about her morality. In less permissive cultures, the female could end up being shunned, punished or even killed.

Common Core Ethics

Although people’s beliefs differ, we may still be able to find a common core to base our ethics upon, such as the Golden Rule. This simple rule, which exists in some form in most religions and belief systems, is a good place to start.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
– The Bible

“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn it.”
​-  Talmud

“None of you truly believes until you wish for your brother what you wish for yourself.”
​- An-Nawawi’s Forty Hadith 

You might argue that if your belief system says you should kill witches, then you have the right to do so, because if you were a witch you would want someone to kill you. You would rather be dead than be a witch. But here you are missing the point. The point is not whether you have the right to kill or be killed according to your beliefs, but according to someone else’s beliefs. 

If I claim that the all powerful, all knowing God Superbooger that lives in my nostrils, told me to kill the heretics (that means you) would you accept it? Probably not. So why should I accept being killed for your beliefs? Maybe we can agree that some things, such as not wanting to be killed, are universal and apply to everyone, regardless of their beliefs.

Then we have a common core that we can base our ethics upon.

“But what about self-defence? If a guy tries to stab you, and you have a gun – you shoot him, right? Not doing so would be suicide, and that is no good either.” 

Actually, this illustrates the problem perfectly. If someone tries to kill you, it is because they believe they have the right to. That people have the right to kill other people. You could also say that killing in self-defence is not really killing, but acting to avoid suicide. For if you do not defend yourself that is what you will be doing – committing suicide by proxy.

Some claim that the death penalty is a form of self-defence on behalf of society, but is this true? If the killer is incarcerated they may no longer pose a threat. Share on X And besides, how long after the fact can we claim murder as an act of self-defence? If you tried to kill me in the 80’s, do I have the right to kill you now? This is an important question as some inmates spend decades on death row.  

“If someone killed your child, you would want that person to die for their crimes. Besides, that is the only way in which you can be sure they won’t hurt anyone else.”

This is a common reason that people give for supporting the death penalty, and it is a good one. This also brings us back to the golden rule – ‘do unto others’. Let us switch the above statement so that it goes both ways.

“If my child kills someone, my child deserves to die. Society needs to be protected from my kid.”

Still okay with this?
Sure you are. 
​Because your kid would never kill anyone or end up on death row, right?  

I didn’t do it. I didn’t kill the guy, I swear. I tried to save him.”

“Your were found standing over the victim with a bloody knife in your hand. And you were seen arguing with him earlier that night. It’s an open and shut case. We’ve got you.”

“Yeah, we argued, but I didn’t kill him. I found him on the ground with a knife in his chest. I pulled it out and tried to stop the bleeding.”

“If that is true, why didn’t you call an ambulance?”

“I didn’t get a chance to. You showed up and arrested me just seconds after I pulled the knife out.”

“Nice try kid, but that story won’t fly in court.”

If this was your kid you would believe him, wouldn’t you? 
But others might not. 

The courts could decide to give him the death penalty. They could decide to kill him. Is that an acceptable risk? There is always a chance that your kid could get killed by some homicidal maniac that they cross paths with. But it is a rather small risk, and one that must be accepted in order to be able to live a normal life. The other risk, the risk of being killed by the government, is one that you may be able to remove.

'Do unto others' is a boomerang. Whatever you decide to throw out there will return to you. If you do not like what comes back - change your output. Share on X

© Merlyn Gabriel Miller