Morality in the Streets

Last week the news (especially the BBC) carried quite a bit of coverage of the riots in multiple cities in the United Kingdom. Rightly so.

This year there have been a lot of people taking to the streets. The "Arab Spring", as some have called it, had lots of people in various places taking to the streets for protest and hopes of political or economic change. Some ending peaceably. Some still raging on with conflict.

But it seems like the events in the UK are different. People took to the streets - and to some degree it may have been influenced by economics and politics - but on the whole it seemed that it was mostly just angry mobs, seeking to turn the chaos they were creating into some personal gain. Looting and 'smash and grab' seemed to be the hallmark of the 'assemblies'. There was no call for policy reform or demand for regime change. It was opportunistic greed and anarchy. Lawlessness.

What I find interesting in these kind of events ist what's said about it by rational, self-controlled and in-charge types. Or, more poignantly - what's NOT said.

On the way to work, I tend to listen to 'the Beeb" (BBC) because I often have my radio set to a public station. (judge not) My default morning news source has a British accent (or accents - they certainly vary!) simply because I'm lazy and don't change the station.

I found fascinating what I wasn't hearing. Most of the news bits and bytes surrounding the aftermath of the riots centered around things like the judicial system and how they were handling the arrest, detention and processing of so many people - many of whom are minors. But there was also a great deal of talk from the leadership. Parliament and Prime Minister and Police.

If you take out all the wrangling over how the government should respond and how officials did and didn't react, there's not a ton left. But what you are left with is intelligent people talking about people who were acting criminally. They spoke of these people being from depressed areas. How some had insufficient services and resources. The blight of uninvolved parents and guardians and it's effect on them. They talked about how to make the rule of law and it's application better compel people to behave properly.

What I never heard anyone say about it was anything about morality. Specifically the word "wrong."

Now - don't be confused by that. A great deal was said about laws and the breaking of them. But I don't think that legality and morality are about the same thing. The legal question has to do with laws and the breaking of them: External actions. Morality also has to do with law, and the breaking of it - but of a different sort. It's more all-encompassing. It's about internal evaluation. Morality has to do with the internal world, and the bedrock level beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. Everyone has this. It doesn't have to be taught.

External laws and punitive actions have an effect on our behavior - to a point. But only to a point, which varies from person to person. If you were to take away all influence of external laws - take away all possibility for punishment, I think you would get a good read on what people's true internal morals are. People who truly do believe that it's wrong to lie would continue to be honest. People who may say that lying is wrong but at bedrock level believe that personal gain through lying is morally acceptable would not be honest. No sir.

The fact that all societies have laws governing behavior and punishments for when those laws are broken is really a reflection of humanity's moral state. And it's not a pretty reflection. People, left un-compelled by an external authority of law, would tear society apart. And each other. Just look at places today where the government is incapable of controlling factions and ethnic groups. Horrors galore.

The British politicians aren't talking about the morals of the rioters. The reality is that the mobs happened because those people were willing to make it happen. Morally, (internally) they didn't have a real problem with those actions - especially when (for whatever the real reasons were) the capacity of police to compel external obedience to the law was diminished or non-existent.

In this day and age, there's a real fear to 'push morality' on people. Morality is seen as a personal thing and if you insist that I hold myself to a particular moral standard, then you are assigned a place with the Nazis and street preachers. How dare you try to compel me to be a certain way, morally. Who are you to say which moral standards are superior!? How dare you condemn me!

This is absurd. On the external side, what are laws? Isn't that exactly what they are? Are they not a forced morality? Whether you believe that murdering someone is justified or not doesn't matter when you get to the court room. The law is that murder is wrong. The penalties are severe. (and rightly so) All laws are a standard that is placed on a society for what is right and wrong. We don't vote for our laws.(except in California)

But again - the law is external.

Politicians, legislators and the like create more and more rules to govern our behavior - but external laws can't do that. They can compel certain actions or curtail others - but they don't have the capability to control hearts and minds. Or to motivate goodness. They never can.

What's needed for a healthy society are people with good morals. And I believe some moral systems are better than others. (I actually think one moral system is best.) Morally sound people govern themselves - they are compelled by an internal sense of right and wrong. For those kinds of people, the government doesn't need to compel them very much. People who are compelled only by external laws do not form a healthy society because governments can't catch everything and everyone. They just might get away with it. And as that possibility increases, the likelihood that they'll break laws will also increase.

So when I see greed induced riots all over the United Kingdom, what concerns me isn't the effectiveness of policies, or the capacity of police to enforce the law. What concerns me is that so many people would consider it alright to behave in such a way. That, to me, is the biggest issue - and one that no amount of legislation will be able to do anything about. The problem is far deeper than the law, and the dangers for us all are far greater. Perhaps we should start talking about that?

What we need is a clear set of laws for the internal, moral world. And there too we need someone who has the capability to know when those laws are broken and can effectively punish. Is there such a person? Is there such a moral law?

And - what we REALLY need is someone who can change us. Because even if the law written in our internal world is crystal clear and the recording and punishment of lawbreaking is absolute - we still break the law.

What we need is a change of heart. A change of desire. a change in our nature. Because, after all, the laws (internal and external) exist solely because we need them. Left to ourselves, we'll tear each other apart.

But who, then, could change us?