Hi fellow MOQites:
While watching TV news the other day someone suggested that Jesse
Jackson, an advocate of black causes, possessed "moral authority."
That set me to wondering what moral authority was, where it came
from and who could rightfully claim it.
The word "authority" itself has at least two meanings: 1) the right to
control, command or determine, and 2) an accepted source of
information, advice, etc. The first meaning includes the power to
punish, the second, the power to persuade.
The term "moral authority'" commonly refers to social patterns of
relationships, or in the MOQ, "social quality." Indeed, prior to the MOQ,
"moral" was applicable only to human society. The belief that there's
no need for morality among atoms, animals or if one is alone on a
desert island is commonly held. The MOQ has changed all that for
many of us, but that's another story.
Concentrating then on the MOQ's "social quality," it seems to me that
the basic moral authority without which society could not survive is
parental authority, made necessary to "socialize" children. In modern
societies, this authority is delegated to teachers as the child develops.
The next step up in terms of the "right-to-control" type of moral authority
would be the governing body of the group. This type of authority has the
power to punish those who violate the group's rules. Thus a boss can
fire an ineffective worker, a church can ostracize a sinful member, a
state can imprison a rapist. The rules and aspirations of the group are
cast in moral terms as being in the group's interest. (All government
programs are touted as being good for the people, whether in
communist, fascist or democratic countries.) That the group has
tremendous power to hand out rewards and punishments is
universally accepted because the individual, to survive at all, needs to
be part of a group, even when the group consists of anarchists.
The next step up the moral authority ladder are those individuals
claiming a "higher authority" than the group -- a higher authority that
speaks to them directly. The most noted of these are Buddha,
Mohammed and Jesus, but there are hundreds of others all over the
world, from channellers, to shamans to saints. These individuals, by
claiming otherworldly insights and powers, draw large followings from
people who need someone to care about them in an otherwise
uncaring world.
Then there are those individuals who are somewhere between the
governing body of a group (the political class) and individuals with
direct contact with higher powers (the Saviors). These would be
chosen delegates of the Saviors including the Pope and hierarchy of
the Roman Catholic church, assorted Protestant bishops and priests,
and the leaders of various and sundry cults such as Scientology,
Jesus Freaks, Children of God, Hare, Krishnas, Synanon, Moonies,
Taliban, etc.
There is also another group claiming moral authority -- the
professional philosophers and "ethicists." Kant, for example, is often
held out by secularists to be a moral authority. Bentham's "the greatest
happiness for the greatest number" is often referred to as a guiding
light. Among moderns one finds human rights activists claiming the
mantel of moral authority although who exactly bestowed the mantel on
them is a mystery to me. Then there are professional ethicists in
academia who likewise claim authority without a discernible basis for
the claim other than supposed intelligence.
Leaders like Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, Ghandi, Confucius,
and Bin Laden all claim(ed) to be spokesmen for a higher-power of
one sort or another, while Hitler, Mussolini, Bush, Arafat and Sharon
claim(ed) to speak for the moral authority of their governing bodies.
With all these various moral authorities around it's little wonder that the
world is in eternal conflict. Toss into the mix the fact that intellect as
presently practiced has no place for morals at all (though a scattered
few philosophers and professional ethicists are trying to apply intellect
to moral issues without much success.) Who to follow? That is the
question.
Which raises the question: Can the MOQ help straighten out the moral
authority mess? Does the MOQ have any moral authority itself? Is it
possible to have a "rational morality" as the MOQ claims?
The problem seems to be that when it comes to behavior, reason is
the least able to explain or influence it. Much more powerful on the
positive side are myths and dreams; on the negative side, fears and
punishments. Emotions, not reason, rule.
My solution to these conundrums is to follow the moral principle of "live
and let live." But if my freedom to live by that principle is threatened, I'm
ready to man the barricades.
Before reading LILA I never thought much about my own moral
principles, but my inclination was toward the live and let live concept,
primarily based on my parent's views and an education that held the
values of America's founding fathers in high esteem. Now in the MOQ I
find what I consider to be a rational authority for my stance.
I wonder what you believe to be your basic moral principle or
principles, and on what authority or basis you have used or now use to
form them.
Thanks.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:04 BST