["Fist," by George Hodan, taken from PublicDomainPictures.Net; this image is in the public domain.]
In a previous post, entitled "An Introduction to Moral Ecology", I introduced the concept of "moral ecology," which is the idea that different moral views arise as a result of differing emphases on virtue, and that each of these moral systems is potentially valid in their own right, and can and should exist in conjunction, competition, and cooperation with other moral outlooks. Please skim that post for background before continuing here.
Note: @daemon-nice has requested that I tag him in all posts relating to moral ecology. Also, @rayaboy and @bpangie: our discussion about reciprocity got me thinking about this, so if you're interested, here's my more detailed response. Finally, @yintercept, this elaborates a bit on the natural boundaries of natural rights from a somewhat more social point of view.
Accepting the existence of an ecology of morals means that conflict will arise in everyday life - especially over the modern electronic agora that is the internet. Without an overarching system of morals, how do we navigate these conflicts? In my view, there are four possible valid approaches: explanation, negotiation, reciprocity, grace, and separation. Depending on the situation, one, multiple, or some combination of those four approaches may be appropriate. Which one is appropriate depends on the reason for the conflict, the level of mutual understanding between the conflicting sides, and the willingness to learn and/or negotiate.
Take, for example, a situation in which a Wahhabist Muslim community is living in a society populated by people who think women walking in public clad only in bikinis is appropriate. These Wahhabists begin to shout angrily at these women in public, and may even start engaging in acts of violence against them. In their view, the public display of female nakedness is deeply offensive and undermines the stability of the family and moral virtue. Assuming that all members of the community are genuine in their beliefs and practice their faith without internal coercion, what do you do about this? Surely, their beliefs are valid - they believe in family values, male and female chastity, and modesty. Their views aren't wrong; they present a sustainable social model that creates a very strong, cohesive social structure. It is successful in many parts of the world. Yet when you place that model of social norms in the social context I've described, it can cause serious problems. Are we to say, then, that the model of social norms that they are attacking is invalid? No, it is not. It represents a different set of moral values - one that emphasizes much more freedom with regards to individual behavior, in which families are expected to have to be able to withstand the challenges of men and women being extremely open about their sexuality; and if the family doesn't survive, then it has to go - not the freedom to display one's body in public and/or be sexually promiscuous. This culture likewise has enjoyed considerable success. It has become very culturally dominant throughout the world, as it tends to attract many young adherents, and has enjoyed tremendous success for the last sixty years.
So what is the solution to this conflict? Well, we can try explaining to the Wahhabists that they are living in a society that values a high level of personal freedom in public life - or explain to the local women that the Wahhabists are violently offended by them dressing provocatively and that they do so at their own risk (explanation), or we could negotiate with the Wahhabists and agree to have them tolerate women wearing one-piece bathing suits in public (negotiation), or we could forgive the Wahhabists and just try to live with their violent tendencies (grace), or we could tell them that anyone who practices Wahhabist Islam is not welcome in that society (separation), or we could encourage women to start carrying mace and/or firearms, and reciprocate violence where it arises with violent self-defense (reciprocity). I think that more or less exhausts the possibilities in this case.
In this case, and in most like it, if we are to retain our freedoms as individuals to pursue the moral code we find correct, while also allowing - insofar as possible - for others to do the same, even if they strongly disagree with us, reciprocity always has to be, if not the primary, then at least a last resort means of navigating moral conflict, because only through reciprocity can you force others to recognize your right to exercise your views, while not asserting force to wrongly eliminate a competing moral outlook.
To return to our example: If we rely on explaining ourselves to the Wahhabists, it is predictable that the outcome will be that they will not care, and will continue to assert domination over those they disagree with. If we negotiate a compromise with them, then we have given up the basis for our moral system because now those women's freedom has been compromised - and we have no reason to believe that the Wahhabists won't push for more and more until we have finally completely submitted. If we simply forgive them and try to live with their violent tendencies, then, in all likelihood, we will be driven out by force of our own living space. If we physically bar any Wahhabists from living there, then we have reduced the freedom of all living there to pursue the moral code that compels their conscience. The only option that does not reduce the freedom to exercise individual morality is reciprocity. This means that the Wahhabists have absolute freedom to practice their religion - but if they try to limit the freedoms of others, they'll get a face full of pepper spray, or a chest full of lead. By that same token, if a bikini-clad woman walks into a Wahhabist mosque, she should expect to be ejected from the premises by force, because in their private spaces, they have the right to practice their beliefs without molestation. So the default fallback solution to conflicts in any sustainable ecology of morals must be reciprocity. Perhaps reciprocity does not need to be the first thing we resort to; perhaps negotiation, grace, or some sort of voluntary separation might have a role to play in this situation, for example, but no other solution can be relied on unless reciprocity is seen as a final resort.
Reciprocity as a default response creates a kind of meta-moral system of its own, and that is also an issue that should be addressed, but that will be the subject of a future post.