If our sovereignty is threatened by a foreign country we will do everything we can to protect ourselves. We will fight, kill and even die for our country. External challenges are perceived as a threat to our way of life, as something that has to be guarded against.
And yet when it comes to internal challenges to the customs and operations of society – rioting, criminality and general lawlessness – we are so much more tolerant. We tend to favour leniency and restraint. It seems that, when faced with internal challenges we operate a higher morality – no capital punishment, no shoot to kill policy, no corporal punishment. Instead, we will champion the rights and protection of the individual.
Of course, adopting a moral stance is generally seen as a desirable and humane approach. It is a more civilised, more mature, more empathetic way of doing things. We should treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves.
This is something we seem to insist upon in relation to our internal affairs. Yet in relation to our external dealings a certain amount of moral flexibility is deemed necessary. Externally, we are less rigorous in upholding our moral values.
Such contrasting behaviours demonstrate a double standard, a moral duality – one set of rules for certain situations; a different set of rules elsewhere.
How can it be acceptable to kill and injure in one scenario and not in the other? How can we reconcile such differing moral attitudes?
There may be a variety of reasons for this variation in the application of our moral code:
- External threats are outside of our control. They are an unknown. We cannot always behave as we would like to or as we would see proper. We are therefore obliged to be reactive. If somebody behaves forcefully against us then we have to respond with force. We cannot always choose the rules of engagement.
- We see our internal population as being a part of us. We have a responsibility to them. They’re like family. We must therefore show a degree of compassion. If insiders behave inappropriately or damagingly then we may even believe that we might be at fault for making them behave as they do. Perhaps society isn’t fulfilling its responsibilities to its population. Perhaps it is society that needs to change. This sense of guilt means that we may be more tolerant of their wayward behaviours.
- We may have acquired a moral softness. If we can maintain law and order without resorting to extremes of enforcement and punishment then surely that must be a good thing. It has to be better to be nice, reasonable, understanding and compassionate. As we are in control of internal affairs we can more readily choose how we manage them.
- Nationalism has triumphed as an aggregating force. We have a closer affinity to our country than we do to our species as a whole, meaning that we are more likely to do what our country asks of us rather than show a moral disposition to other nationals.
- Foreigners – outsiders – may be considered as being of less worth than our domestic population. We therefore – arguably – don’t have to adopt the same moral standards with them.
- It is noticeable that it tends to be liberal democracies that are more tolerant in the management of their societies. It may therefore be the type of political system that is responsible for this higher internal moral attitude. Perhaps in the long term, democracy does soften society.
Ultimately though, the most likely reason for this differing approach is that we have a greater awareness of external threats and believe that external threats represent a greater danger to us than internal ones.
The trouble is that this may not be true. Internal challenges may be just as threatening to us as those that arise from outside. They too carry their own risks.
This is because anything that threatens to weaken or undermine society is also a challenge to humanity itself. Society was formed to safeguard humanity from the harsh forces of Nature. Humanity could not survive without society’s support, protection and sustenance. Without society we would soon be eclipsed by Nature. We need society. In fact, such is our dependence that we could no longer survive in a world of Nature, a world without society.
It is for this reason that any challenge or threat to society – whether that be external or internal – should be perceived as one that potentially endangers humanity. As such, all threats need to be taken with the utmost seriousness and dealt with equally, unambiguously and absolutely.
But instead, over the years we have become more relaxed and tolerant in the management of society. The individual’s role, position and status has become more significant – greater freedoms, more rights and increased influence. It seems that we are now more likely to prioritise the individual over the interests of society as a whole.
This contrasts with how things were managed in the past. Then, internal threats would have been dealt with more severely – harsh punishments, zero tolerance, ruthless enforcement. Society, its preservation and pre-eminence, was recognised as being our singular focus.
But now, with a growing leniency acquired through an expanded moral righteousness, this opens us up for the destabilising, undermining and possible collapse of society. And that’s where the risk lies. Without society to support us, humanity is weakened, our survival jeopardised.
Some will argue that a maturer society can afford to be more lenient and tolerant. We have the structural strength to withstand internal challenge. Society is solid enough to establish its own rules of engagement and to defend itself against internal disorder. But that doesn’t avoid the fact that such an approach carries a risk – we just don’t know where the boundaries are. We just don’t know when a challenge becomes a viable existential threat.
There is also a danger that we can be drawn into prioritising the upholding of moral standards rather than focusing on the real problems at hand. Morality can stop us doing what we need to to. Circumstances may arise where we lose sight of our need to maintain the soundness of society because we are too concerned with ensuring we act morally. Our over-riding objectives can be lost or diluted for the sake of doing what is morally right.
We don’t behave like this as individuals. If our family is in danger then we will do all we need to do in order to protect them. Doing the best for our children will always override our moralistic intent. If necessary, moral standards can be shelved.
Similarly, as we have noted, in conducting our external affairs, moral codes are often suspended.
Humanity, in the governance of society, needs to be aware of the risks involved in rigidly pursuing a moral course. Morality, although highly laudable, is a luxury and privilege of modern society. It should not be a sacred principle. We should not be dogmatic or sanctimonious when it comes to reviewing our moral attitudes and behaviours.
We must be willing to adopt a more selective approach when it comes to morality. We must reconcile ourselves to the need for a moral duality not just in the management of our external relations but also in regard to how we manage our internal affairs.
