Seeing Through the Cage



Morality is as artificial as is this morality meter

I have had a hard time understanding Western philosophers we have encountered in Search so far. Before I read Nietzsche’s First Essay, I have even, in jest, said that western philosophy has gone downhill since Ancient Greece.  Western theologians and philosophers such as Aristotle, Augustine, Luther, Descartes, Kant, and Marx, all believe in some unifying or exemplifying ideal. There must be something that is the very best of things. For Plato, it’s the Forms; for Aristotle, it’s the eudemonia; for Augustine, Luther, and Descartes, it’s God; for Kant, it’s the objective maxim. Because of their confidence in the perfect ideal, they believed in the perfect morality. I was skeptical of their stances on morality based on one single doubt: can there really be perfection? I can find no evidence for one set of moral values being the best of them all. The idea of God seems to be a mere extrapolation on the idea of the Socratic Form.  The Western thinkers were trapped in a cage of perfection. They assume the necessity of perfection while there is none.

Nietzsche sees through the cage. What we called “good” in the Roman times, was nothing but what the ancient Greeks thought best exemplify what people want the most - the virtue of a knife is in its sharpness. Utility or usefulness dictates goodness. Such etymology of good is found in Chinese language even today: the term YICHONG, or Useful Bugs connotes goodness, the term HAICHONG, or Harmful Bugs connotes badness. There’s nothing confusing here. Morality started off the same way. After Socrates’ failure at defining the Just, the Romans created a noble morality. Morally good actions are just actions that are useful. Aeneas' leaving Dido may be heartless, but he still proves to be a good Roman because of his obedience to duty, a useful conscience for a strong Roman. As Nietzsche points out, the noble point of view sees values different from theirs as barbarian (Genealogy of Morals 477). I find a mocking tone in his defense of the Roman values.  A powerful herd of people believe: whatever my people think is good, is good, whatever we think is bad, is bad. Anyone thinking otherwise is just underdeveloped. This is as ridiculous as the weak herd of people believing: whatever those against us are, are evil; whatever least like those against us are, are good.

There’s no reason to adopt either the week's or the strong's side of the moral debate. The Christian morality we have today is there, but it is not founded on anything, certainly not God – since he has long been dead. These values are here only because they were useful once, when the week became numerous and carried a mutual ressentiment. A reverse of the Roman morality is just as authoritarian and false as the original. Here we come to a realization: there is no morality. But wait! What of the consequences?

If there is no morality, how do people live in harmony? If we can’t tell our kid, taking things from other kids is wrong, what of our peaceful society? We have only unsatisfactorily appeased the concern when we inform everyone in a society that moral laws are useful though artificial, just like a knife is artificial, but useful. A societal moral code may then be able to take the place of a Christian morality, however not fully. The Christian morality with a God as overseer is strong beyond doubt. No Christian wants to forgo blissful afterlife and extend their lifelong suffering even more. However, we can't always rely on the Christian morality. It is way too rigid. Its content has become obsolete decades ago if not more. We are now in this sticky situation where we have no readily-available moral code with the same weight to replace the Christian one in a post-Christian era. Some might ask: do we really need something to replace the blank left by Christian morality? I am leaning to the positive answer.

Growing up as one of the weak in a Godless country, I have experienced the effect of having merely suggestive moral laws on society. Unfortunately, the new artificial morality doesn’t work as well as some atheists in this country have hoped. In a country with new moral codes, People can only guess how to be a good person, an inconvenience that has resulted in the strong herd tacitly defining how a society works. I did not see myself surviving in that climate. Most of us are just slaves; we can’t survive without a slave morality at least around us, if not in us. I am in such a predicament: I know a Christian morality is irrational in itself and harmful when involved in governing; however, I cannot deny its nonparallel efficiency in maintaining a society congenial to the weak and numerous (which I am a part of).

I think, when one sees the world in its reality, underneath its pretense, one is doomed to despair. That the world is the best of all possible worlds is a wonderful, fulfilling belief to have. It is beneficial for my mind if I can un-see the ugliness of the world, to know that the world (or rather human society) is not created by human, but by some other intelligent, perfectly free being, I am free from the guilt of participating in the creating of an ugly world. I am also free from the loneliness of a prophet. The only one who sees the world as it is, is necessarily alone. We want to have companions; therefore we must deny the ugliness of our companions and ourselves. Inconveniently,I feel incapable to self-deceive. I found empathy in Nietzsche’s view, however a dim light for my future sanity as well.