An
Exposition of Dr. Fisher’s
“Moral
Compass”
JAMES
R. FISHER, JR., Ph.D.
©
November 2, 2017
Dr. Fisher,
I’ve read your little
book, “The Absence of Mind in the Modern
Self – The Invasion of Media,” with interest. You point out that the media select facts –
true or distorted, verified or not – which suggests a form of propaganda. It is a way of appealing to something in us
that we find in adventure movies and novels, and in children’s literature.
Media takes us across a
line that is hardly visible. What
distinguishes selling from education is that selling serves mostly the seller
while education serves those being educated.
I like to think I have become immune to this evasive strategy.
More to the point, you
have often referred to the “moral compass,” as you do in this little book. This brings me to my criticism. Your reference to “moral compass” reminds me
of what Bertrand Russell once said:
“Everything
is vague to a degree you do not realize til you have tried to make it precise.”
In other words, to my
mind there are widely differing references to the “moral compass.” Take for example, nepotism. In the Middle East, nepotism is considered a virtue for it puts one’s family to
work. In the West, however, it is considered
far less virtuous but something of a pejorative. In that context, ideally, one does not use
one’s position of authority to favor relatives over merit. Leaving inheritance to offspring aside, which
tilts the level playing field, we come back to the ambiguity of your concept of
“moral compass” with philosopher Russell’s comment, do we not?
Thank you for your most
poignant reflections. My surprise is
that I’ve never been asked this question before. I first used the term in “The Taboo Against Being Your Own Best Friend” (1996). To wit:
“We
are not happy campers. We have lost our moral compass and our way.”
Twenty one years later
(2017), I see little evidence that we have rediscovered our moral center, or
indeed, our way back to civility.
THE GENESIS OF “MORAL
COMPASS”
Obviously, we are
looking at the concept of “moral compass” from differing perspectives. My focus is in terms of personal identity and
relates exclusively to the individual.
We were both born and
grew to maturity in a terrible century, a world of deliberate cruelty,
destruction, and the extermination of millions of innocent people which has had
no parallel in history. Voltaire once
claimed “ideas did it all.” He may have anticipated Karl Marx (1818-1883)
and his Communist Manifesto” (1848) and
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) and his “Mein
Kampf” (1925). In any case, Western Civilization over the past 100
years has been influenced by ideas taken from these respective ideologies.
Philosopher of History
Isaiah Berlin writes:
(Ideas) not, as some historians like to believe,
social conditions, and the effect of technology on culture, (when the influenced
has been by) Marxism, Fascism, National
Socialism – ideas born in the heads of individuals who bound their spell upon a
mass of credulous followers: it is these ideas in the end, and these
individuals, who are responsible, without them it is not credible that anything
of this kind could have happened (Isaiah Berlin: Affirming, 2015, p. 541).
The focus of my writing
has been on the individual with the ideas of that conceptual framework coming out
of my experience, reflections, observations and reading. My approach has never been about the
collective group, per se, although sometimes the individual has been viewed in
that context: e.g., the behavior of the individual in the work group where the
dominant culture dictates collective behavior.
Man exists in somewhat of
an unconscious state while claiming to be conscious of his every act, when such
consciousness often on display is “after
the fact.”
The media in general
and advertising in particular – be the claim truth telling or information sharing
– has mainly devolved to the status of entertainment as an art form. These disciplines are in the business of
manipulating human thought based on an understanding of what effect this or
that stimulus will have on them in a marketing, political or economic sense. They lean on analytics of demographics and
behavioral data, as there is no other reliable theoretical substitute. Through mountains of data they distill catch
phrases that are designed to provoke a plurality of favorable responses, and
are willing to spend tens of millions of dollars towards that end.
We are a reactive
rather than an anticipating animal although we have the same anticipating
mechanism at our disposal as lower animals, which we refuse to use as we prefer
to see ourselves as conscious cognitive thinking human beings. We expect to display “grace under pressure” with
problem solving aplomb whatever the situation demands. Unfortunately, our failure
to take seriously palpable danger is part of our cultural programming. This finds us existing mainly on automatic
pilot. Alas, the mechanism we bypass is
our intuition.
We feel danger before
we are aware of its presence; we feel a bad relationship before it blossoms
into despair; we feel our innate capacity for happiness before we abort it to
win popularity with the “in” crowd.
We have had great
philosophers since the beginning of time, but have been dependent on
philosophers of the 18th century’s “Age of the Enlightenment” ever since. They successfully dismantled the metaphysics
of religion to replace it with the scientific
method, logical positivism and cognitive reasoning. Now science has replaced religion with
compelling efficiency in exploring physical phenomena while being much less
efficient in matters relating to people as persons, the social sciences
notwithstanding. Consequently, the
individual finds himself in the midst of shifting shadows and misdirecting
mirrors unable to grasp reality in an increasingly confusing and hostile social
and political climate.
Despite all the disruption
over the past 100 years, man has done better than might have been expected when
his “moral compass” is on display.
Knowing how to act, when to act, how strongly to act, and against whom
to act is a gift of this creative center.
This is the individual as artist of his own destiny with buoyancy to
survive all challenges.
Life is a pragmatic matter
in which a “moral compass” allows the individual to identify the ends for which
he is working; to discern the subtle distinctions between ends and means; and
to recognize possible collisions between equally appealing choices, which
cannot be avoided. To not choose between
the options available is to have circumstances control the choosing.
None of this is
reducible to a simple system. It is the
individual reacting to what is real to what is not; what is relevant to what is
simply smoke and mirrors; to what enhances progress to what derails such
efforts.
Given this assessment, a
preoccupation with “things” tends to mask the clarity of what is being pursued. Reliance on second, third and fourth levels
of information clouds the mind with spurious data preventing a fundamental
grasp of the requirements in the problem solving. The solutions are never in the media; nor are
they in books and the latest fad.
Solutions are buried in the problem itself, requiring an intrinsic
understanding of that problem.
Interestingly enough, once
we are comfortable alone, without noise, without the need for compulsive
texting and tweeting, without constant checking of our iPhones for the latest
social media postings, we are free to grasp reality. We are ready to take the appropriate action
demanded in the problem solving; and by extension, ready to reconnect with
others in real and substantive ways.
THE MORAL COMPASS &
PURPOSEFUL IDENTITY
In June 1993, The Reader’s Digest carried a brief work
of mind, which could have been deemed “Aspects of Our Moral Compass.” It suggested:
To
have a friend you must be a friend starting with yourself. The greatest virtue is kindness. You cannot love everyone, but you can be kind
to anyone. Nothing of consequence is
achieved without enthusiasm. Positive
people attract others while negative people repel. Gossip cheapens the gossiper more than the
one gossiped about. Communicate cheerfulness.
If inclined to make fun of someone, make it be of oneself. Smile often
as it costs nothing. Follow the Golden Rule by doing unto others as you would
have them do unto you.
No doubt these are clichés
but they connote values and provide a window to the moral shop of our mind to
see who and what we are.
Philosopher Isaiah
Berlin claims we are born with certain moral values as a result of all the
forces that create us – tradition, education, the views of people we live
among, the books we read, and our own thoughts.
But can we reject that “self” to which we are kin for yet another self?
Obviously, there exists
constant pressure to adopt the identity of the “in” crowd or that of the masses,
resulting in the curious predicament of being seen as an outsider if we remain true
to our roots. With the flippancy of a chiaroscuro
day, we can become a millionaire but remain an imposter to ourselves if we deny
our working class heritage.
We can change our personality as it is impressionistic
and something borrowed. We cannot change
our essence as it belongs to ourselves, alone.
It is something owned. If it is
necessary to “blend in” to win acceptance of the group, the price may be
self-estrangement.
Evidence of this retreat from self-knowing can
be experienced in fits of depression, violent mood swings and boredom. This propensity to gloom and doom has become a
boom to the cosmetic, pharmaceutical, psychotherapy, plastic surgery and
dermatology industries. Religion once provided
sanctuary from the trauma of self-doubt, but now it has lost its efficacy and relevance. The newest boogeyman now is life, itself, as
people are afraid of life, afraid to grow up, afraid to grow old, feeling a
compelling need to deny death which is simply a part of life.
Drug addiction has
become a pervasive norm of popular culture as an alternative to boredom and
self-loathing. This may start with the
innocence of taking a prescription drug in recreational insouciance only to
subsequently become hooked on the remedy and on the road to self-destruction. We don’t become lost and self-hating in a
moment. Depersonalization takes time for
the gradual erosion of core values and beliefs to drive a person away from
self-regard and into a state of being associated with the wrong people in the
wrong place at the wrong time.
Eventually, the addicted person finds himself in “nowhere land,” wondering how this has happened.
There are questions we may
ask ourselves when caught in this dilemma:
When
did I adopt this new outlook? When did I
start to hate what I am and my own people?
When did my thoughts spin out of control and my imagination end in fantasy
land? When did I uncritically accept my
adopted belief system without reflection?
Identity and
self-regard spring from a healthy self-monitoring “moral center” with supportive
values that are fully operational and self-sustaining.
Anyone who reads
biographies and histories of people in their respective situations can see how
they wrestled with their times and with themselves to reach their
eminence.
Challenge and failure humanized
them as they dealt with their foibles and follies, the same way they humanize
us as we deal with our own. They are not
another race. They are the same as we are
only written large. Intuition often
plays a role in their lives the same as it does in ours. This was true of Elbert Einstein who dreamed
of riding a light beam soaring beyond time and matter and what we call “space.”
TWO
CASES IN POINT
PROFILE OF ADAM
The idea of a “moral
compass” has intrigued Adam since a boy as he has always been disinclined to
compare and compete with others while quietly doing his own thing to effectively
utilize his inherent ability.
The idea of being popular
with his playmates never occurred to him, for if they wanted to go to one movie
and he desired to go to another, he would separate himself from them, and say
he would see them after the flick often to their disappointment and consternation.
If it started to rain
when they were playing baseball, his teammates would find some place to go to
chat and play card games, while he would go home to read his comics. He would do this without preamble as he never
felt comfortable with small talk.
It didn’t occur to him
that this was odd as it was quite natural to him. His teammates tolerated him as he was, as did
his classmates and later coworkers on the job because they knew he would bring
his best efforts to whatever he was doing with a complete commitment to
excellence irrespective of the activity or the return on that investment.
Once reaching
professional status at work after university, he never considered competing against
other professionals for raises or promotions.
Ironically, since his focus was entirely on the job at hand, he enjoyed a
modicum of promotions in a panoply of careers.
Should he become bored
at what he was doing, experience a sense of betrayal, or encounter an assault on
his character, he would resign posthaste.
No amount of money or social pressure could keep him doing what was
offensive to him as he trusted himself in finding something more suitable to
his disposition, but alas, often at the pain of personal and economic sacrifice.
His “moral compass” has
been a reliable guidance system that has defied conventional wisdom and good
sense as it is inner directed rather than externally dependent. He would retire early to write books and
articles outlining what he has experienced, has learned from that experience,
and how that experience has elevated his awareness of the satisfaction and happiness
possible when worry, distress and anxiety are put to bed. He encourages his readers to think for
themselves, creatively and confidently, in their daily pursuits by harnessing their
unique talent.
He claims no special
talent, never considered himself either especially ambitious or courageous, while
being wholeheartedly involved in some kind of activity at every juncture of his
life keeping his mind and spirit operating at something approaching his
capacity.
PROFILE OF EVE
Eve never met a
stranger. She warms up to everyone she
meets as if a long lost relative. She is
kind, gentle, courteous, generous, humble, perspicacious and perennially cheerful. She goes out of her way to make others feel
good about themselves helping them wherever she finds them: at work, in the shopping
mall, in the community, or in her home.
It is never about her
but always about others with whom she is socializing or working. She delights in bringing a smile to a face
that was earlier frowning. She is modest
to a fault while being talented at whatever she does. She is exceptionally intelligent but wears this
attribute with disarming charm. She is a
learner not a knower; a listener not a talker; a problem solver not a worrier. She is the most mature adult you will ever
meet, and you will feel this before it reaches your consciousness.
She has a zest for life
that is contagious. Everyone she knows considers
themselves her best friend. She came
from a loving family where her parents were “Born Again” Christians and
practiced their faith openly and unapologetically. She was an obedient and loving daughter but once
out of the nest she took on life in a much less doctrinaire way and became her
own person on her own terms and her own way.
This has confounded those confined to absolutes be they of church,
state, social class, or of a certain political persuasion, ethnicity or race,
as reason not bias guides her actions and choices.
Given this description,
the reader might assume that she is malleable to a fault. Not true.
There is steel in her spine. Cross
the invisible line in her construction that marks the sanctity of her person,
and you will experience her wrath, a vitriol that you will never forget. Her “moral compass” is unobtrusive but
totally engaged. While it is not rigid, it
will sanction no violation.
To meet her, you would
find it hard to imagine her ever getting mad, upset or calling a person
out. But lie to her or betray her trust
and you will experience her animus and the thunder of her displeasure.
ADAM & EVE AS ONE
The “moral compasses” of
Adam and Eve may appear to be quite different, but are they? Eve is clearly a cognitive person with a
strong affect while Adam is an intuitive person with an equally strong affect
but tainted with self-righteousness.
Adam rejects the herd mentality with a vengeance and moralistic disdain
while Eve is simply amused by those inclined to such counterproductive dalliances.
Eve is gregarious with
a strong social conscience while Adam is most comfortable alone with his books
or in the company of Eve. Adam is
pensive and quasi-narcissistic whereas Eve never takes herself too seriously. She enjoys games and popular music as well as
situation comedies on television whereas Adam has no interest in any of
this. He prefers complex mysteries on
television with many fault lines with the greater the twists and turns the
greater his satisfaction. Such mysteries,
however, put Eve to sleep. They both
enjoy reading but not necessarily the same books. Adam is driven never having learned to relax,
that is, until Eve came into his life.
She has introduced him to the comfort of simply hanging out.
Adam and Eve have been
married for many years, both with active “moral compasses” with dispositions to
act and react to situations and stimuli consistent with their respective differences. What these guidance systems have in common is
that they are centered on, activated by and responsive to external stimuli.
Adam and Eve have remained
loving, committed and supportive of each other despite their different
approaches to life. Why do they get
along so well? They respect and trust
each other, give each other lots of space, constantly talk to each other every
day, sharing their high points, while enjoying each other’s company in such
diverse activities as shopping for groceries or traveling about the world.
Another common bond is
that they were both born and grew up in the culture of the American Midwest
with Eve’s ancestors coming from Norway and of the Lutheran faith, while Adam’s
ancestors came from Ireland and Norway and were Roman Catholics. Not enough can be said about a common
heritage contributing to a sustainable relationship.
In summary, Adam and
Eve are each other’s best friend; committed
to doing no one harm be they rich or poor, educated or not, and of whatever
race, religion, and ethnicity or belief system; for they trust themselves and therefore
can trust each other.
I hope this helps; and I
thank you for challenging my reference to the “moral compass.”
