It is generally believed that moral values are based on principles innate to the human psyche. To many of us, the ideals of equality and justice seem as natural as the desire to survive and prosper.
However, if one were to look beneath the surface of the supposed ‘noble human values’, one would find that the basis of these morals is not rooted in abstract ideas but in the exercise of power by those who wield it the most at a point in time.
Power – the core arbiter of morality
Slavery and the lesser humans
Human history is rife with instances of slavery, in its various forms, being considered not only normal but in accordance with the natural order of things. Things like enslavement of people from other tribes and the race-based hierarchy have been considered morally justifiable by their contemporary ethical standards.
Colonialism and civilisation
Odd as it may seem to those unaware of the rationale behind colonialism, those who engaged in colonial conquests have often attempted to justify and even glorify their actions by claiming to ‘bring civilisation to the uncivilised’.
Democracy
The definition of democracy makes it seem like the perfect form of government. But the root of the problem lies in human nature. The innate desire to impose one’s will over others is universal, whether it be a powerful minority exerting control over the masses or the majority overpowering the minority by sheer force of numbers.
Fundamentalism
Any form of dogma, religious fundamentalism in particular, seeks to eliminate dissent and assume control of society under the pretence of working for the greater good. Often, the messengers and representatives of purported divine entities have prescribed inhumane atrocities upon those who refuse to accept the said dogma.
Hypocrisy
Not only does the balance, or the imbalance, of power decide who gets to define moral values, but it also determines where the moral values apply and who is free to ignore them.
Conclusion
It does, therefore, stand to reason that moral values are not necessarily the symbols of virtue that they’re often claimed to be. They are but an extension of the human psyche’s desire for control. They can often serve as tools of manipulation and authority while acting behind the garb of noble intentions.
An interesting take on the issue of morality.
Thought-provoking
How would it benefit those in power? For example why would someone suggest donation to the poor. How does it directly and meaningfully help him? Why would they suggest sacrificing ones life for protecting an innocent? I’d argue even some morals are against power itself. Seeking justice for example.
It would be crucial to keep in mind that power is not a simple binary thing; that is, one would either have power or be powerless. There are several forms of power and several degrees of it.
For example, a ruler commands authority over his subjects not merely by virtue of brute force but also by the loyalty of those whom he rules and those who assist his authority – his soldiers, his ministers, et al. It is generally in the interest of the said ruler to earn some degree of confidence in the subjects and his partners in power. Rich people donating to the poor out of their own goodwill fosters a certain degree of social cohesion. History has several instances of tyrants being assassinated and/or overthrown.
Moral standards help the rulers and their associates retain power without much opposition.
On the other hand, there have also been countless ruthless rulers and their allies who have exhibited absolutely no signs of moral values which modern humans have come to expect as the bare minimum. They believed there was no need to be kind or generous or impartial, so they weren’t.
At the core of humanity lies the preservation and proliferation of human lives. There’s a reason why humans are social beings – it enhances the probability of survival in a brutal world such as ours. Hierarchy is an essential part of society, even though it may be masked at times. Those who are at the apex shall find it hard to remain there unless they strengthen their standing. The peasants would gladly accept their ruler if he were to ensure safety from external savages and internal crime.