The Barrow

It seems today that there are as many models and definitions of morality as there are people. However, there seem to be a few that hold great sway over multitudes. There are obviously variations in them from person to person, and they seem very inconsistently applied, but I think this holds true.

Most people seem to subscribe to two sorts of moralities. There is the ubiquitous “do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone” which I will call the “artificially lax” model, and various flavors of “morality is what this holy book says it is” which I will call the “artificially rigid” model. I have issues with both I will outline here, but they both have their advantages as well as disadvantages.

The artificially rigid model has greater capacity to create community consensus and clear, context-independent boundaries of right and wrong that are simple and easily understood. To use my forest analogy from before, it is the equivalent of following the easiest and best-marked hiking path from point A to point B. Its disadvantages, however, are that it stifles individual freedoms in many cases (though one could successfully argue this may even be a good thing) and punishes even the most experienced hikers from deviating from the trail. It is easy mode and is perhaps best for the overwhelming majority of people.

The lax model, however, allows for great personal freedom, but can destroy attempts at community consensus, at least take to its extreme. One could say, though, that the overwhelming liberal moral hegemony on the internet from circa 2015 to 2020 is a good example of this model successfully creating a strong community consensus. However, this quickly broke down in the stress created by the pandemic in 2020, among other factors, whereas community consensus created by the rigid model tends to be very resilient to these types of stressful circumstances. In addition, encouraging deviation from the path will result in inexperienced hikers sustaining great injury. This can, of course, push people toward rigid models, which then push people toward lax models in an endless cycle.

I propose that the lax model works fine as long as one has a good definition of what hurts people. In fact, with a healthy definition of this, the lax model is possibly the most rigid one. If I'm playing a video game instead of spending time with my family, I am likely electing to hurt myself and others with this choice and therefore should not make it. If I am staying up late despite needing to be up early, I am making an immoral choice, as this will likely hurt me and the people who depend upon me.

In addition, one must have a healthy model of what the purpose of human life even is for this model to function well.

Given these parameters, the lax model is in fact the superior one, but most people are incapable of the level of thought required to navigate this. Those people should stay on the well-trodden path.

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.