YesBut how can an individual’s loyalty to community be established?

In the previous blog I made the case that a moral code cannot function where people have no feeling of community. In the 1980s Margaret Thatcher guided Britain through the process of dismantling a belief in the existence of community. And now we are suffering the consequences, with the absence of a moral code of behaviour.

How can a sense of community be established? One way would be by starting in the home and re-establishing families as community units. There existed years ago extended families that supported one another. Aunts’ uncles, elder cousins took an interest and were involved in the upbringing of younger family members. In those days, who were or not blood relatives wasn’t always clear; neighbours were referred to as Aunty Elizabeth, and Uncle George, etc. There were eyes everywhere, protective eyes to ensure no harm came to you. Those eyes were just as affective in monitoring behaviour - step off the straight and narrow and you were bound to be caught!

Unfortunately due to economic pressures, to obtain employment, people have had to move from their home towns and family. They live in their little boxes surrounded by strangers. Strangely this isolation hasn’t strengthened the nuclear facility unit

Children have to be provided for; they “need” the latest brand named cloths, trainers, MP3 player and computer. Mothers have to work. Children have to become more self-sufficient. They stay in their bedrooms communicating with their cyberspace friends in chat rooms. Families rarely sit around a table to eat - convenience foods are eaten on trays in front of the TV set. For a family to function there must be communication. Parents and children need to set aside time to talk, exchange views, laugh, explain and plan. With family life functioning, links can be made between neighbours. People can again start caring for society and the environment around them.

Regrettably in the United Kingdom the highest crime rates occur in sink estates in large urban conurbations. The rundown, badly maintained estates provide “homes” for families suffering economic and social deprivation. One parent families living just above the poverty line survive in a concrete jungle, surrounded by crime, their children poorly educated. Any aspirations for achieving improvements are slowly squeezed out of them by the daily struggle for survival. With no hope, dysfunctional families produce dysfunctional children. Yet paradoxically a sense of being social and economic outcasts produces communities. When the world is against you, tribal loyalty comes into play. Individuals look for allies. Unfortunately the result is gang culture.

Gangs survive, because they have strong membership loyalty whose behaviour is controlled by strict rules. Members have their code of honour - “moral” codes. This can, in extreme circumstances result in murders being committed, to prove gang loyalty. Unfortunately instead of tackling the problem politicians aren’t addressing the problem they merely use it for political manipulation and self advantage.

In the era of spin, the exploitation of public fear has become a feature of British politics‘- whether it is street-crime or terrorism. In doing so large sections of society are being ostracised and demonised. Black youths and Muslims are being caricaturised, respectively, as being synonymous with street-crime and terrorism. This results in excluding them from society. So instead of building communities politicians are tearing them apart.

If an individual’s loyalty to community is to be established, it must be done in the home and in schools.

YesBut are schools capable of engendering in their pupils a recognition of the need to establish a community having a moral code?

YesBut what is conscience?

It’s not against the law to tell untruths - except when said under oath in a court of law. Yet people are reluctant to lie. What controlling factor influences a person to take or not take an action? One of the reasons is fear. Fear of being caught and punished - either by the law or as an act of retribution by a deity.But why do atheists consider acts which are not against the law unacceptable? Why is some behaviour considered acceptable, while others are taboo? Is it due to the functioning of conscience?

The performance of conscience requires a judgement between right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable. To do this there must be a predefined standard of behaviour - a moral code.

Perhaps one moral precept which is universally accepted is don’t take another human’s life- the sixth of the Ten Commandments. Yet both Blair and Bush who profess to be Christians had no hesitation in ordering the invasion of Iraq. Resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

The Ninth Commandment accepted by both: Jews, Catholics and Protestants is “Thou shall not bear false witness”. How can you tell when a politician is lying? There lips are moving.

Is conscience an inherent sense or the product of social indoctrination and pressure?

It must have a social component - morality isn’t universal. For example homosexuality is not against the law and becoming more socially acceptable in Europe, yet is considered both repulsive and taboo in Africa. So moral standards vary from country to country and are continuously evolving.

Conscience is the indoctrinated reaction to a set of rules formulated to attain social cohesion.

In recent years there has been a parallel decline in both a sense of community and social conscience. I am jarred most on witnessing apparently trivial wrongdoings:

• spitting - something that is on the increase,
• young people not giving up their seat on public transport to an old person or pregnant woman,
  
• behaviour with no consideration for others - barging in front of people, talking loudly on mobile phones, playing MP3 players on public transport - the constant muffled sh sh sh sh sh.

In a “I centred World” there is no requirement for conscience and as a consequence morality.

No amount of preaching by politicians or religious leaders will re-establish a moral code - they are no longer respected or trusted. In reality even if they were, morality cannot be introduced into the collective consciousness - it would be equivalent to sowing seed in a parched desert. The pre-eminent prerequisite is the establishment of a sense of community.

In an earlier blog (“YesBut can society thrive without a moral code?”, dated 29th April 2007) I discussed the dismantling of community in the 1980s under the guidance of the then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

How can individual loyalty to community be established?

YesBut can society thrive without a moral code?

From the time of the Industrial Revolution, the great entrepreneurs of the age recognized their responsibility to society. They donated vast sums to build schools, hospitals, bridges and roads. They started charities to look after the poor, destitute, the widowed and the orphaned. These were not entirely altruistic acts; they recognised the benefits to their own family of having a stable society and workforce. The growth of trade unionism brought a new moral force in society. As well as seeking equitable treatment at the work place, they also established educational establishments.

Preceding the rise of Trade Unions and later in parallel with them, the 18th & 19th centuries saw the birth and growth of the non conformist movement. In Wales alone, between the middle of 18th & 19th centuries there were 15 major religious revivals. Methodist and Baptist Chapels established themselves at the heart of their communities and society. Their activities were not conducted merely behind chapel doors. Members practiced what they preached; the most high profile activity being the formation of the temperance movement

By the end of the second decade of the twentieth century, the World witnessed the beginning of a political philosophy which deprecated religion, its founder Karl Marx said “Religion is the opium of the people (masses)”. Following the Russian Revolution in 1917 a state was established that at best sidelined religion at worst persecuted religious organisations and individual believers. In communist countries “The State” became supreme. Individuals became the servants/slaves of the state. States formulated moral codes which enhanced the power of the ruling Communist Party. Spying on: your neighbours, your family, your wife/husband and children was morally correct.

The above is a very brief and cursory review, provided only to illustrate the existence of moral codes in contrasting societies. It ignores key events of the twentieth century which had significant influences on moral standards and codes, i.e. two World Wars and the 1960s’ - which despite being the hedonistic decade, it was a time when people took a moral stand and protested against racism in South Africa and the USA, and the Vietnam War.

Whether a religious or secular society, they have always established moral codes. Yet now, there is a generally acceptance not that there has been a breakdown of moral standards, but an absence of a moral code. When did this begin?

In an interview published in Woman’s Own magazine in October 1987 the then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher infamously said “There is no such thing as society.” This one sentence typified the attitude prevailing in the 80’s. It was the “I’m all right Jack to hell with society” decade. Investment Bankers in the City of London indulged in Champaign lunches while record unemployment figures were reached due to the decline of the manufacturing and heavy engineering sector. And the final death nail was hammered into the coal mining industry’s coffin. While under communism the State/Society was supreme, under Thatcher the individual became not only supreme but the sole consideration.

It seems now, not only is there no one to provide moral authority, but the organizations who formally would have provided moral guidance are either in crisis, ineffectual or uncaring. Christianity and the Christian church are seen as outmoded irrelevances. Trade Unions were neuter by Thatcher. While political parties, particularly New Labour live in a world of “spin”. Facts and truth have become an irrelevance, only image matters.

The absence of a moral code has not provided a sense of freedom of action or thought, but an underlying feeling of emptiness.

Is the desire for a moral code merely the result of previous indoctrination, or do humans truly have an inherent need for generally accepted moral standards?