Morality

TL;DR I've got one, and it increasingly seems like that's just strictly verboten.

I already touched on this general topic some amount of time ago (in 2014, the Year of the Cringe), so there might be some rehashing here. The topic is, however, back with a spicy, fiery vengeance picante, and there's no merciful milk in sight.

Here's a dramatic statement: as I see it, our society is rapidly grinding over the edge of a cliff toward a precipitous backslide into total, abject moral bankruptcy.

I've been taking some anthropology classes up here in the glacial north of Berkeley (I might minor in that subject for kicks), and some phrases that get tossed around a lot is "comparative common sense" and "alternative moralities," and things of that nature. These are what contemporary anthropology is designed to study, the multitude of different possible human experiences in our world, preconditioned but not predetermined by an infinite number of preexisting conditions, yadda yadda.

So, with my brand-new Baby's First Anthropology kit and my biologist's sense of the blatantly obvious, I sat and thought for a while on the subject. My findings are as follows:

"Comparative common sense" is an excellent handle for the topic of how different people in different cultures experience the world, and it's an excellent topic for conversation. That's really all I've got to say about that one, barring an extended conversation in person; I just couldn't do it justice in the format of writing for more than one person. It's "personal," you might say.

For the sake of user-friendliness, here's a quick explanation of "alternative morality:" essentially, people come from all walks of life and all kinds of different places and contexts. As such, we've got some wildly varied ideas about what's "right" and "natural" and the answer to the ethical question "what should be done?" It's a noble bit of theory evoking the loftier parts of anthropology's higher mission of human understanding and unity.

"Alternative morality" the way we Berkeleyites use it and talk about it is, speaking frankly, some bullshit. Not merely ordinary run-of-the-mill bullshit, mind you, but bullshit of a higher order: sneaky, ephemeral, dangerous bullshit.

The implicit assumption you make when siding with advocates of alternative morality theory is that all moralities are, if not acceptable, at least comprehensible to you. For example, I do not subscribe to the strict injunction in the Qur'an against gambling; I think gambling and games of chance can be worthwhile and enjoyable, in moderation. I do, however, understand why such an injunction might exist, if gambling had become in some way damaging to the humans who practiced it.

As another example, I don't particularly drink alcohol or use drugs in general. There are a few different reasons for that, but let's go with "my morality," the set of mental predilections I was conditioned to have and the ethical rules I set for myself, as the homogenized bulk reason.

This is not to suggest that I'm going to sit over here with my eyebrows up and sniff derisively every time you sip your wine. In my understanding, you are fully free to drink and not drink as you choose, because I don't care; my choice is for me, and informed by my personal morality. Your morality is very likely different from mine, and there's no way I can assert that either morality is better, so do y'own thang, as they say.

Both these examples suggest a fairly accepting, progressive mindset on my part, and they should; I do my best to remain open-minded about the differences in how people have lived and become fully-aware humans. I fail a great deal more than I should, but I really do try; let him who is without sin cast the first stone, and so on.

Now, there's a catch to all this: alternative morality theory also implicitly assumes that any person it's applied to has a morality. In the case of some people, I am not convinced we should make that assumption.

A "morality" is a set of "principles concerning the distinction between good and bad or right and wrong behavior." The problem is this: alternative morality theory is an understanding that people have different ideas about what's right and wrong, and people my age are appropriating it to mean that nothing they do is wrong.

This may seem like I'm splitting the proverbial hairs, and I am sitting firmly in a warm puddle of semantics, but hear me out. To accept someone else's different principles is a different thing from excusing a person's total lack of any principles whatsoever.

What I mean is this: alternative morality theory is about accepting everyone's morality. What it is not about is rejecting mine because it makes you feel bad to apply it.

One of the things I catch a lot of flak for here, from my esteemed colleagues in the vaunted halls of anthropology discussion sections, is my outdated and judgmental morality. To avoid glossing, it is very not chic to be Christian in these parts. This is due to a number of assumptions people make when deprived of any actual knowledge of Christian theology and/or blood flow to their brain, but that's another post.

Morality wasn't created to enable me to sit and take judgmental potshots at you, as much as some people might like you to believe so. Not all the constraints of morality are entirely artificial contrivances of human minds to constrain our inherent potential that so terrifies us, as many Intro to Philosophy students might say. In many cases, conventional morality urges you not to do something because it is a bad idea.  The best part of a morality is just synthesized human experience, delivered to you in a concise, processed package from previous generations who have already done this whole "living" thing. It can carry some problematic baggage of its context with it, for sure, but old wisdom is still wisdom.

I'm starting to ramble, so let me cut right to the chase here: there are certain things I don't do because I shouldn't, and I'm mature and self-disciplined enough to understand that. I don't go out drinking heavily with any regularity, and I didn't at all before I was 21. It's not because I'm scared; it's because alcohol and being arrested are both statistically extremely bad for you.

Relatedly, I don't go out and have anonymous sex with random strangers. It's not because I'm closeted or afraid of experiencing the fullness of life, believe it or not; it's actually because, barring any moral objection on my part, I don't like the idea of picking up something incurable and either extremely uncomfortable or outright lethal from some idiot who "like uh forgot to mention it i guess my bad #yolo."

I eat a balanced diet, exercise frequently, and do my level best to sleep eight hours a night (ha!). I perform well in school, I maintain healthy friendships to the best of my ability, and I watch out for my own health and safety and that of others. I don't do these things because I've been told to and I fear the authority of those who told me. I do them because I think they're right, and they assist me with my function by easing my conscience. I do what I believe in, and I think many people might want to try doing the same, instead of subscribing to the signature Young Person Amoral Freedom I see circulating so loosely.

And you're damn right I talk to my mom every day. My mom's awesome; get on her level.

That wraps this one up, fellow people. Don't read this in too negative of a tone; it's not meant to be as harsh as it might sound. As always, feel free to show this to people you think would like it, or at least not try to kill me after reading it. Also, provide me with that feedback I do so adore, in the form of a comment or an email to breakingberkeley@gmail.com. Peace an' blessin's C: