Humanity's Natural Morality

The ideals of Love, Truth, Freedom and Wisdom are actually inborn to human minds. We do not have the articulated principles, which must be taught by culture, but the inclinations and tendencies exist from the time of our infancy. It is the task of parents, teachers, preachers and writers to help us grow into their full potential. And their success enhances our own maturity and that of our civilization as a whole.

Love
• Care vs Harm (helpless)
   - nurture, guide & support
• Compassion vs Cruelty (broken)
   - rescue, heal & release
• Gratitude vs Contempt (friend)
   - reciprocate, help & propagate
* Welcome vs Hostility (stranger)
   - respect, share & invite

Truth
• Trust vs Deception (knowledge)
   - honest, useful & unbiased
• Loyalty vs Betrayal (perspective)
   - tribalism, teamwork & aims
• Authority vs Anarchy (utopia)
   - teachers, traditions & ideals
* Investigation vs Mythos (nature)
   - observation, factual & testable

Freedom
• Fairness vs Cheating (family)
   - sharing, deserving & need
• Equality vs Privilege (society)
   - rights, opportunity & merit
• Liberty vs Oppression (government)
   - reactance, unity & resistance
* Thought vs Indoctrination (mind)
   - reason, understanding & ideas

Wisdom
• Holiness vs Defilement (personal)
   - cleanliness, diet & speech
• Prudence vs Disregard (destiny)
   - consider, prepare & navigate
* Moderation vs Perturbment (culture)
   - forethought, reason & harmony
• Sacredness vs Destruction (respect)
   - protect, restore & preserve

1). All of our morality is based on these basic principles, even our religions. But even so, morality evolves and improves. It doesn't go backwards. The development of society from its primal roots to towns, then states, and eventually to civilised empires necessitated the growth of moral attitudes, as it became more inclusive. Our responsibilities grow ever wider as we encounter people from around the world, and must treat them as we wish to be treated.

Our earliest law codes were devised to keep the peace in society. Many of the issues they had to deal with are still relevant today. They had laws against theft, and so do we. We have learned that it is not conducive to peaceful interactions to harbor jealousies in our hearts regarding the possessions or relationships belonging to others. We also know that a promise to be faithful to our spouses in marriage is meant to help us to grow in love and trust, and to provide a safe and stable environment for our children. Breaking that trust can only cause harm. And there is no doubt that peace and justice can only be served when witnesses tell the truth to the best of their ability when questioned in a court of law. And more recently, we have recalled the natural concern for the welfare of animals, that they should not be abused or treated callously. We also know that a customer has the right to expect reasonable value and consideration when making an economic transaction, and that anything less is simply cheating. Failure to live up to these codes and standards is a sure path for society to devolve into chaos.

Furthermore, the world cannot support hostile prejudices or ideologies bent on conquest. Rather, we must have tolerance and cooperation if we are going to face the challenges before us, and survive to achieve our dreams. Good moral standards guide our responses toward the acceptance of our neighbors as friends, and to eventually be treated as extended family. We then understand that friction is inevitable but does not need to lead to conflict, and that will allow us to seek reconciliation.

2). Nowhere is there any moral authority for violence, although it is allowed in defense of one's self or of those who are unable to make defense. Violence that leads to physical harm, or the death of another, cannot be justified outside of defensive situations, and still demands a full explanation even then. However, there is support for nonviolence and noncooperative interference with the status quo, gradually increasing the pressure to recognize and solve the problems that are causing the discontent.

Civil disobedience is not a crime. It is a patriotic act in defense of the state, reasserting the morality and well-being which it is supposed to protect. If the state has enacted laws contrary to righteousness, it is the responsibility of its citizens to speak up and seek redress, and to change the law. Being jailed for civil disobedience is an opportunity for discussion about the future of civil society, particularly any effective improvements as may be agreed upon, so as to avoid oppression and further discord.

3). Governments must also learn to behave in a moral fashion. They are not above the law. Even if they are the source of legislation, that is only culture, not divinity. As always, the "golden rule" applies. Individual states must treat each other as neighbors, since we all live on a single small planet. Nations do not exist as islands, but as members of a global society.

We do not have the right to impose our own culture or laws on other nations, any more than we have the right to invade their territory. But neither do we have any obligation to allow others to impose their ways upon us. "Love your enemies" has never been a viable immigration policy, as it invites conflict and civil war. Until such time as the world has a lasting peace, we shall all have to remember how to "walk softly, and carry a big stick." But at the same time "speak clearly, and don't swing the stick." No one can be expected to "turn the other cheek." That is for saints, not for politics.

4). Punishment for crimes should be compassionately measured out through education, psychological treatment and reorientation (that is "non-violent respectful coercion"). And yet, true justice is not only about prevention and punishment. It must include healing, reparations and restoration of community.

Paying a fine to the government is not justice; it does nothing to rehabilitate the offender's moral character, nor does it help to compensate the victim. It is nothing but a tax imposed to pay for the police to reestablish order and control.

Equally, the imprisonment of " bad" criminals only emphasizes the rupture of community. It fails to try to repair and strengthen the offender's moral character. To corral prisoners together only causes a net experience of evil, compounding inappropriate response patterns. If the only way to repair a broken morality is via "brainwashing" and therapeutic intervention, then such actions would be justified, with the long-term expectation of eventual reintegration into productive civil society. The aim is penitence and reform, not disposal.

Prisons are only a temporary expedient, a brief holding pattern awaiting adequate treatment, and should not be harsh in either circumstances or interactions. Criminals are there to be "helped" to  regain their moral humanity, and eventually their civil rights, and these changes in expectations should work toward an amelioration of antagonisms throughout the justice system.

--------
I would like to reference an important book which put me on the track to develop these ideas more fully:

The Righteous Mind
- Why good people are divided by politics and religion
by Jonathan Haidt
Vintage Books, New York, 2013
ISBN: 978-0-307-45577-2

This book can fill out ideas I have skimmed over lightly, and point in the direction I have gone further.

Thanks, Jonathan.