You are on page 1of 17

How is moral growth achieved?

By Justin Synnestvedt, [Chapter Thirteen from my 2016 book, Modern or Moral]

Maturing
For me, a difficult philosophical question is whether, and how, its possible for a person to move from
immature, natural and self-centered states of mind to those that are mature, unnatural and loving. I dont
think philosophy can definitively answer this question, if it must constrain itself to deal only with what can
be proved by reason and tested by confirmable sense experience i.e. independent of any metaphysical or
religious suppositions. I think moral maturation always requires some intervention; nature wont take care of
it; in fact, nature opposes it.
It is certainly possible for people to act morally, without being moral. It does takes a certain degree of
intellectual maturity to do this. Childish behavior is obviously self-serving. Its easily disregarded, and
doesnt get favorable results from care givers, unless they are irresponsible or ignorant. Adults can act
childishly too, insofar as they do impulsively whatever their desires dictate, without concern for how their
behavior affects or is viewed by others. But most adults are concerned about their reputation, because it is to
everyones advantage to be well thought of. It makes life more pleasant. A community whose members all
acted like children would be unbearable. In fact, it wouldnt be a community; its unimaginable. But a
community of so-called enlightened self-interested people would not be distinguishable outwardly from one
whose members were genuinely concerned for the welfare of others.
Moral maturity, then, is different from intellectual maturity; it requires the latter, but adds something to
it. Its primarily a function of will or intention, guided by an awareness and commitment to what is right.
Typically, perhaps always, this kind of development requires the encouragement of loving adults (ideally,
from parents). But those parents in turn learned it from earlier generations, and so on. To avoid an infinite
regress, we must propose an ultimate source that is not naturally selfish, but is genuinely loving and good.
(Good and loving are effectively synonymous.) A person of religion would identify this source as God.

Is moral agency part of human nature?

The idea of agency in questions of moral responsibility is, of course, disputed. Is it possible to determine
when, if ever, a person is truly an agent? I dont think so. In every community, there are, and have always
been, common views about how to judge that a person is not responsible for her actions. These can make
others question her mind state. She may be thought not to be an agent, in the sense of responsibility, even
though she may indeed be very active, and intent on getting things done. Are her actions out of the ordinary,
or contrary to her habitual behavior? Are her words incoherent, or inconsistent with her actions? Does she
seem to be experiencing her surroundings in ways that dont agree with those around her? Is she evidently
not herself, or out of her mind? Is she hallucinating or intoxicated? Is she blind with rage or under
hypnosis?
Loss of agency isnt just that one is acting from beliefs that others dont share. We all do this, and can
still be responsible for our actions, although we might suffer social disapproval. Loss of agency is when
another agent is overpowering a persons freedom of belief, or of action. This could be a subconscious
feeling (as in a Freudian slip), or a brain disease (as in Tourettes syndrome), or an overpowering delusion,
or a possessing demon (if there is such a thing), or Gods will (if there is such a thing). In such cases, others
will ordinarily say something like Lizzy Borden couldnt help herself. They wont hold her responsible,
even if her words and actions match up perfectly.
The term agency is also used in a legal sense, which can confuse the issue. Its said that a person can be
appointed as an agent e.g. an attorney to act on behalf of another person, or as representing a legal
entity, like a corporation. This makes the question of responsibility difficult, especially in terms of morality.
Does the legal agent take all the responsibility, or is responsibility owned by the one who appointed the
agent, or by both? We say that a corporation (really, its board of directors) appoints a chief executive. Does
that executive take the responsibility for the policies, or the directives that she puts in place, or does the
responsibility attach to the board as well, or even with the corporation which is a legal person? Can a
corporation be immoral, or be responsible for doing harm, or do such terms not apply to these abstract
entities, or the roles they generate? These are on-going questions, which are in principle philosophical,
although there are legal decisions which give them practical meaning.
In some viewpoints, no human being is ever an agent in the pure sense of being the creator or origin of
her actions. Its believed by many that no matter how independent one may appear, to others or herself, a
person always acts on behalf of, or in the place of, or because of some controlling power or authority. A
materialist might call this power nature; a religious believer might call it karma, or god. But the effect is
the same. Does God punish the children for the sins of their fathers? In some Jewish scriptures, apparently
yes (Ex 20:5, Deut 5:9). In some Jewish and Christian scriptures, apparently no (Deut 24:16, John 9:2). If the
wrongdoer doesnt always receive the punishment, or the innocent one is sometimes punished for anothers
deed, agency seems to be shareable, or not easy to assign. Perhaps the decision is always arbitrary. But
assigning the agency to God for whatever happens, good or evil, simply relieves humans from the burden of
responsibility. In my view, such a perspective destroys the meaning of morality.
Why can moral agency or responsibility not be assigned to a young child? First, because she has no
objective concept of the value of what she aims at, but only her subjective feelings about it. Relatedly, she
can only be motivated by her orientation towards the expected consequences, believing goodness (or
badness) to be whatever tends to bring about pleasure (or pain). A child can indeed know what consequences
to expect, by seeing patterns in the results of previous actions. (An animal does this too.) In this way, she can
be guided by her parents, who explain what the consequences of her action will be, and who make sure that
these consequences do indeed happen. (If you cant play nicely with the dog, you will have to go to your
room and be alone.) The child does not, however, know the moral quality of those consequences or of that
behavior. For a young child even one who has learned language experience is a much stronger
confirmation of understanding than words. A dog doesnt need to understand any command, so long as the
sound of the command is associated with a definite, consistent experience. A look, a tone of voice, or a
particular word form can be the cue, and will be associated with some experience, pleasant or unpleasant, to
habituate the dog to do what its master wishes. The simpler, the more effective it is. Its the same with a
small child.
A spiritualist interpretation of mental growth
There is a spiritualist perspective of mental growth, which is not at all characteristic of modern and post-
modern views we have summarized previously. To illustrate this perspective, I will refer again to some ideas
of Swedenborg, who by now is familiar to the reader. I believe he best represents the effort to relate the
philosophy of science to the philosophy of morals, while grounding both on theological principles. As said
previously, Kant was close to Swedenborg in many ways, by making room in his philosophy for a rational
religion and a rational morality. Unlike Swedenborg, however, Kant based his morality on the existence of
the higher law, which is knowable by reason, independently of any divine influence or religious dogmas.
Swedenborg claims that no thoughts or desires come to humans from nature. They all ultimately have a
divine origin.

All of heavens angels admit that no one can originate a thought, that all thinking comes from the Lord,
while all the spirits of hell claim that thought cannot originate in anyone but themselves. Actually, these
spirits have been shown any number of times that none of them are originating their own thoughts, that
they cannot, and that it is all flowing in, but to no effect they are unwilling to accept it.i

At birth i.e. with consciousness at the first breath people do have natural thoughts and feelings, but
these are also from God. That is to say, the first mental stage is earth-bound, concerned with sense life, and
provides the basis for learning and understanding how the world works, and allows for education and
development towards higher stages. These higher stages are discretely different, so that the changes are not
automatic or continuous from one to the next. But they can be accessed by anyone who matures mentally
through the normal periods of mental growth (infancy, childhood, adolescence and adulthood), if the
individual is willing to move beyond worldly thoughts and concerns. If she is, her thoughts and feelings
change in each stage, from the earth-bound at birth to the celestial after death, but they are understood and
loved according to the maturity of the person that is, according to the development of her intellectual and
voluntary faculties.
No one is directly conscious of the spiritual origin of her thoughts and feelings in any of these stages. If
she were, she would reject that influence, because a person will not accept what she does not see and feel to
be her own. Such awareness must necessarily be a matter of belief; it cannot be proved through reasoning or
direct perception. This veil of ignorance between what appears to be a persons own spiritual life, and its
divine origin, is providential; its purpose is that everyone can make free choices about what to believe is
true, and about what to love and intend. Without such freedom, no person could accept the gifts of wisdom
and love, and the happiness these gifts entail. Paradoxical though it may sound, Swedenborg claims that the
more a person is convinced that everything good and true is a divine gift, the more intense is her sense of
self, freedom, and happiness. In all of this, Swedenborg supports the traditional biblical view that God is the
origin of all goodness and truth. However, very much against tradition, he says the origin of falsity and evil
is not the devil, but humans, through the abuse of their divinely guaranteed freedom of intention and belief.
Personhood begins with consciousness at first breath, and builds from that point. In that sense, it is
innate, although it is not from nature. Consciousness is the result of the souls interaction with the bodys
sensations. The body too, with its functions and sensations, is a product of divine influx into nature, making
organic forms receptive of life, out of dead matter.ii Every individual person, or mind, is the totality of
thoughts and feelings which are experienced and appropriated i.e. acted upon, and made permanently ones
own. This process of appropriation, or making ones own, is the free exercise of intention and discernment
(traditionally called will and intellect).
Consciousness is not equivalent to stimulus-response events; it is a mental activity, initiated by the soul
(or mind), and not by the body.iii Freedom of intention and discernment are given to everyone from the first,
and sustained, so long as possible, which means for the duration of earthly life. The maturation or
development of each person is a matter of choice throughout this formative period, between birth and death.
The things that people believe and understand, can (and must) go beyond what they care about and intend or
choose at birth, to help them progress spiritually. But ultimately, according to Swedenborg, intentions and
beliefs (or will and intellect) will match up, to form an integrated, complementary whole, which is the
permanent self i.e. the unique person who each of us really is. The true self is formed by her primary or
ruling love. This is because what a person loves leads her to seek how to accomplish it, and to the degree
that freedom allows, to fix it in action, and confirm it by reasoning. By contrast, what one believes, is only
temporary, unless it is fixed and made permanent, or confirmed, especially by living it. Whatever ideas or
knowledge are not attached this way to our experience, through application to life, remain abstract, and will
eventually evaporate and disappear from consciousness.iv
In my judgment, Swedenborgs explanations of mind and soul have strong affinities with Plato, Aristotle
and Kant. He holds with Plato that God is The Good, and that personal immortality exists beyond nature. He
holds with Aristotle that body i.e. material existence is needed for personal development, and to establish
a grounding and permanence to individual lives. He holds with Kant in his efforts to use scientific reasoning,
in recognizing the limitations of pure reason, and in claiming that freedom requires transcending the fixed
boundaries of nature.v
Its natural to think that whatever gives us pleasure or delight is good. So whatever we desire to do, we
will try to bring about, and justify by reasoning. Even the worst people try to justify what they love, and
whatever deeds come from such loves, with their desires, pleasures and delights. For this reason, parents and
care-givers have always known that children need guidance to behave well, and their natural self-
centeredness needs to be redirected by right teaching and discipline. This way, they can come to find delight
and pleasure in doing well, and in understanding why they must go against their first inclinations, and in
practicing that change. Its not just a matter of avoiding disapproval or punishment. Simply being told what
is better to do wont change anyones desires. Motives can be changed only when right behavior is associated
with pleasure or delight (or wrong behavior with displeasure and distaste). As David Hume said, only desires
can motivate.vi
This appears to support operant conditioning theories of behavioral psychology. However, motivational
change is not a function of biological laws about pleasure and pain. Rather, it involves spiritual influences
that can elicit delight in the minds of those who discipline themselves. Moreover, operant conditioning may
not work for young children, if it is used in an unrefined, pleasure-pain fashion. Let me give an anecdote that
helped me to understand this.
I once took my eighteen-month old child with me in the car, putting him in a car seat beside me. He
grabbed the steering wheel, but I pushed his hand away. He did it again, and I pushed his hand more
forcefully, and said No in a firm tone. His mouth turned down, but he repeated the action. I slapped his
hand, and he started crying, but immediately repeated the bad behavior. Being a young, idealistic and very
nave parent, I was baffled and angry, thinking You wont win a battle of wills with me! Im the authority.
But he did win. And of course I had to stop and place him in the back seat. Soon after that, I had an epiphany.
My son was obviously getting more satisfaction from the close attention I was paying him, than the
unhappiness he felt by being treated harshly. In my view, we were both acting out our capacities as spiritual
beings, and learning developmental lessons. I actually think this illustrates the spiritualist approach to moral
development better than the naturalist perspective, but it is doubtful that B. F. Skinner would concur with this
opinion.
Making smart choices
After learning language, its not difficult for a young person to understand and obey a particular
command from an authority figure (e.g. Dont talk smarty to me, young man!). Understanding is a function
of reason, and requires language mastery. Obedience (i.e., in behavior) is a function of freedom, guided by
understanding. The choice starts early on, whether to obey, and receive praise and support, or to disobey, and
receive the opposite. But this choice is not truly free in younger years. A young person will choose what she
believes will reach her goals, and gratify her desires. But some children seem better able to delay
gratification than others, and this may affect how successful they are at becoming responsible, or disciplined.
The notion of delayed gratification has been widely circulated in the popular press in the last few years, as
recessions and political opinions have impacted views about the goals and methods of education.
Starting in the early sixties, Stanford psychologist Walter Mischel, working with preschool children, did
some experiments, together with follow up studies, which were widely publicized under the name The
Marshmallow Test. Recently, Prof. Mischel has explained them, and corrected some popular
misconceptions. The studies are about achievement situations and what influences a child to reach his or her
choice. viiI quote Mischel directly, because the media instantly turned his findings into an iconic theme, with
a catchy name, illustrated with YouTube videos all playing into popular beliefs that science has found a
test to predict success and fulfillment in adult life. The further misinterpretation is that every childs future is
determined by whatever it is that made her pass or fail the test.viii
I think such studies can be valuable in showing that discipline or delayed gratification is a skill that can
be learned and practiced, and that it is needed in the work of moral development. Success is not, as some
naturalists suggest, a matter of genetic predisposition, although brain damage and disease factors are
obviously relevant. Certainly success can be promoted by loving adults who know and care about the childs
welfare both worldly and spiritual. But in the long run, it depends on choices which are made throughout
life, with guidance that transcends worldly influences. To put this in the language of Swedenborg, the success
or failure of moral development entails a process of individual decisions that lead either to a greater and
greater enslavement to self-interest and evil, or to greater and greater independence and good. Freedom
develops when a person begins to break free of selfish desires, and can see goals that go beyond self-
gratification. At what age this might happen is, I believe, a matter of training and education. Some people
never attain true freedom, either because of mental incapacity, or because they give over wholeheartedly to
their natural desires. These are old ideas, which we have seen are at odds with the trends of modernity.
A higher level of intellectual maturity is needed to understand (and obey) a social norm (e.g., Being
rude to elders is wrong). That is because a social norm is more general and abstract than a personal
command, and because the social consequences or feedback are less immediate and less certain. Yet another
step of maturity is needed to understand and decide whether that social norm is valid (e.g., to know where it
stands in a hierarchy of values, or principles, or whether it is only an arbitrary convention, like whether and
how to use a knife and fork while eating). Finally, its even harder to know and reflect objectively on ones
own motives (e.g., Even if I dislike this person, I should treat her with civility and fairness).
In any person, how does the idea of a higher, non-natural standard of good or right arise? It requires the
ability and effort to reflect on ones desires and interests like pleasure, security, friends, learning, artwork,
a hobby while understanding universal (objective, lawful) concepts, such as humanity, law (both natural
and man-made), society, authority, or goodness. Thus the idea of natural law, gathered from understanding
the independent (and causally governed) nature of the world, as distinct from human intentions, can lead to
concept of a higher law that governs not only questions of material fact, but also questions of value. But this
advancing maturity of thought doesnt happen spontaneously; it requires teaching, suggestion and inspiration
by other people, in books, and especially in personal relationships.ix
These stages represent the maturing of a persons discernment or understanding, which is a function of
reason or intellect. They mark the degree of a persons agency or responsibility. They are not, however, a
measure of a persons moral development, or goodness. That is a product of a persons will, which is
expressed in desires and intentions, and to the degree that social conditions allow, in words and actions too.
Obviously an ill-willed person is more constrained by law and social convention, and cannot freely express
outwardly, in word and deed, what she is inwardly. So true spiritual freedom belongs only to those whose
character is in line with what is true and good. Right behavior is encouraged by a good social environment,
and a just state.
Making ideal choices fiction and imagination
For purposes of moral growth, a person needs to think about what is beyond the here and now, to a
world that could be, and should be. In addition, she must be able to move in that direction by practicing what
her beliefs show to be right. These are matters of the heart and the head. For this purpose, imagination is
vital, and fiction is an indispensable means to develop imagination. Language is a function of symbolic
thought. It takes us beyond the realm of direct experience to the realm of meaning.
The abstract nature of stories, both read and listened to, allows a reader or listener to exercise her
imagination to the fullest, in an effort to see what the ideas are presenting. But this imaginative seeing is
not visual seeing with the eye. Of course, for young children, who are just learning written language, pictures
are useful, and increase interest in the story. But too often illustrations in story books, photos in newspapers,
videos in music, or celebrities in advertisements replace true imagination. They are used to make an
arbitrary, and limiting connection between ideas or feelings (which are inherently creative and variable) and
some concrete pictorial experience. In these instances, imagination is not freed; its controlled.
Visual imagination seems to rest on memory, although it can be altered at will. A winged horse can be
imagined, but only because both wings and horses have been experienced. Descartes pointed this out.
Perhaps it also requires experience to compose imaginary events or states of mind. When I imagine kissing a
frog, the kissing and the frog are matters of memory, but the event is not. Even if no one ever scribbled on
one of Marys drawings in second grade, Mary can still imagine how she might feel if someone should
scribble on her picture in the way that she just scribbled on her schoolmates picture. But either way, the
value of imagination is to process and understand the meaning and possibility of other states of affairs, or
other worlds, which may or may not exist. Imagination is not like prediction, which children learn from
seeing set patterns in what they experience (something that animals can also do). Imagination gets away from
the lawfulness required for prediction. That is its primary value. It enables a person, as it were, to experience
the qualities, feelings, meanings and worth of possible actions, events and states of affairs, even if they dont
actually exist.
Image-making
As mentioned earlier, one characteristic of recent modernity is the increasing displacement of rational
thought by intense feeling, in peoples speech and thought. Most importantly, it has supplanted the earlier
culture of writing, in which true and false and logical are meaningful, with a culture of show business,
where right now and pleasant and grabbing (or boring) are key concepts. The influence of technology
in this change cannot be overstated. Although most people havent realized it, the invention of telegraph and
photograph in the eighteen-forties was the beginning of turning a culture of printing into a culture of instant
(in time) and present (in space) bits of data. Marshal McLuhan studied the cultural effects of various methods
of communication (oral, written, printed, electronic, radio, television, etc.). His book, Understanding Media:
The Extensions of Man (1964), shows that each medium forces the shared content to conform to its particular
demands. This radically alters both the way people think, and what they think, about the world and about
themselves in the world.x
Twenty years later, Neil Postman updated McLuhans ideas in his indictment of television Amusing
Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (1985). In it, he showed that the influence
of TV has changed the thinking of the majority of Americans. Bites of information from everywhere in the
world are given equal time (average 45 seconds) regardless of the subject, always presented in attractive
ways, with musical and visual accompaniment, to maintain interest. Whether its the weather, the news,
advertising, a political campaign pitch, a governmental report, a talk show, or a sitcom, the goal is the same
to maintain a hold on viewers by entertaining them and the format is always based on show business.xi
No history or context is provided for these ideas and images, nor any relation to the previous bite, or
the following bite. There is no analysis of causes, or prognosis of effects, or evaluation of importance, or
applicability to the viewer, or relevance to her life. In a sense, she is encouraged not to apply anything, but to
remain fascinated and comfortable. In the process (perhaps by design), she may become incapable of making
important, well-thought-out decisions or changes, in the world or even in herself, unless it also advances the
ends of the media makers and those who control them. To summarize these critics views (which I share),
under the influence of television, popular thinking moves in the following directions: from practical to
irrelevant, from serious to frivolous, from rational to emotional, from universal to particular, from creative to
repetitive, from community to isolation, from active to passive, and from free to slavish. How this will
continue in the computer age I dont know. But technology is not neutral. It never has been.
From study, and experience in and out of the classroom, its obvious to me that thirty years after
Postmans book was first published, all that he said about the show-business culture still applies, and has
intensified. The development of smart (computerized) classrooms, personal computers, and hand-held
devices has led to the further erosion of ordinary citizens ability to read and write, to think well, to
communicate with strangers and friends, to learn who they are, and to make independent and effective
choices. Postman pointed out that the invention of electronic communication with the telegraph may have
made the world one neighborhood, or a global village as it is called today, but it was a peculiar one,
populated by strangers who knew nothing but the most superficial facts about each other.xii
Has the world wide proliferation of smart phones made relationships in this global village any less
superficial, or more fulfilling? Certainly wireless communication is helpful to stay in touch with family,
business acquaintances and needed social services like health and law enforcement. This is especially true in
undeveloped parts of the world. But these contact networks are typically local, and depend on previous
acquaintance. The technical overcoming of distance and time limits on communication doesnt automatically
translate into having better relations with more people in this global village. The fact that I can potentially
contact almost anyone on the opposite side of the globe in no way brings us all closer together. The
connection must be there in the first place. In my view, global technology doesnt create social bonds.
Although screen watching cant bring people together, social media do seem able to rearrange
relationships, or bring about new connections, which can be very influential. Two recent examples are dating
sites (e.g. Match.com), used to find suitable mates, and group sites (e.g. Facebook), used to find a circle of
friends. Both of these turn out to be primarily about image-making for a public persona, so there is little, if
any, depth of serious relationship building. Aside from their shallowness, and their use for marketing, they
can also be tools for causing harm, for example, when adolescents are exposed to ridicule, and bullied on
line, or when political organizations use them to recruit nave and disaffected youth to violent causes, such as
the current efforts by ISIS and its affiliates.xiii
Imagination is a vital stage in moral development. In some ways (also related to media), modernity has
also tended to stunt imagination. Postman discusses at length the influence of photography on modern
thought. In the beginning, photos could bring the viewer up close and personal to something at an
undefined distance, whether in a different neighborhood, or across the ocean. It might be a landscape, a battle
scene, a street scene, or a person, either consciously posing, or caught on camera. These visual experiences
today are made more intense by the use of videos. In every case, though, and in every genre, the image is of
something particular a concrete fact (except, of course, if it has been created or changed (photo-shopped)
by computer. It doesnt have meaning, although it may be associated with some thought or feeling.
Visual art (in contrast with visual technology) has been used for thousands of years. But efforts to
present actual likenesses have only been possible since the Renaissance, typically in the form of portraits.
From that time on, a visual artist had the choice of giving as precise an image as possible of the person
depicted make it lifelike or to make it say something beyond the obvious. Typically, the view was not
neutral; it had a viewpoint, and was intended to affect the feelings and judgment of the viewer. Even ordinary
scenes, such as in paintings of the early 19th century Barbizon School in France (e.g. Millet and Corot),
painted from nature, were given to represent universal themes and values in human life work, family,
community.
Photographers too have been able to create art with a camera. As such, the particular image is offered in
the spirit of a symbol, or expressive example, of a larger theme even something universal. Of course, there
is also the propagandistic use of visuals. Not so well known is the controlling power of visuals in the hands
of corporate media, and especially in the ads of their sponsors. The best photographic technology is found in
advertisements. Images are produced through which viewers identify themselves, and are therefore attracted
to the products. Since these images are pleasing (entertaining, familiar, full of promise, etc.), they are
believed to be benign; the viewers dont feel they are being controlled mentally, and manipulated to their
own disadvantage. Their imagination is not theirs, in such cases, but is implanted in them; so it isnt really
imagination.
A further example is the way visuals accompany other kinds of media, such as music, or stories. MTV
was the technical advancement to join videos to music, making certain songs more attractive, and associating
the music with a particular person or scene. In my childhood (nineteen-forties), Disney animated a film to
match scores of various classical music favorites, including Stravinskys Rite of Spring, Dukas
Sorcerers Apprentice, and Beethovens Pastoral Symphony. It was called Fantasia, and the music was
conducted by a famous popularizer, Leopold Stokowski.xiv My older siblings used to complain that they
could never hear the opening phrases of the Pastoral Symphony again without seeing in their heads little
animated water nymphs, bathing with breasts exposed.
Imagining and remembering both entail bringing images to mind that is, visual representations. But
its well to keep in mind that that both memory and imagination can deal with abstract ideas also, which
demand language. For instance, I can remember how it felt when my father went off to work without our
saying goodbye. There may be visual aspects to this memory, but not to the feelings associated with it.
Similarly, a child can imagine events in images, but also without images. But memory is limited to events
that one has actually experienced (although apparently not always). So-called false memory was a source of
many harmful effects in parent-child relationships and lawsuits, but prior to the nineteen-nineties it was not
discussed. However, in the eighties and nineties, psychotherapists were practicing Recovered Memory
Therapy (RMT), sometimes using drugs or hypnosis to induce patients to recall repressed experiences.xvIts
interesting that neither False Memory Syndrome nor Recovered Memory Therapy are terms included in the
1994 edition of The American Psychological Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV),
apparently due to their controversial political nature, but in DSM V (2013), the term dissociative amnesia
is retained.
Music, dance, and other arts also provide practice in imagining, and encourage creativity, as it is said.
Books take children to a different level of thinking, however, more than the non-literary arts. Childrens
books are very important, but their primary value is not in the pictures, which introduce them to the meaning
of words, but in the writing, which teaches them the meaning of thoughts a higher form of symbolism and
abstraction. What does this mark D mean or symbolize? A sound. Put it together with the marks O and G
it means the English sound dog. But what does that sound mean? It means the idea dog (not this particular
animal pictured, but some generalization) a further abstraction. The picture of the dog is not an
abstraction, but a concrete example (or rather, an image of such).xvi
Only language can carry this idealization to higher levels. In fact, thinking in images can hinder
imagination. Images become associated with certain ideas in ways that become automatic by association, and
controlled, rather than free and creative. This psychological fact is the basis of the power advertising holds in
our show business culture. Good feelings are associated, for instance, with a team of eight Clydesdale
horses pulling a red, white and gold beer wagon. Anheuser-Busch has fixed that image in the public
consciousness since 1933 (the year prohibition ended), and with it, many positive feelings about drinking
Budweiser beer.xvii Obviously, there is no rational connection between drinking Budweiser (or any other beer)
and happiness. Nor is there any rational connection between the iconic horses and this particular brew. These
are emotional associations, created and sustained by constant repetition via modern (non-print) media.
Lets not think of childrens imagination only in the sense of fairy tales, although these are important.
Imagination develops through all sorts of literature, but primarily fiction. Buddha, Confucius, Plato, Jesus,
Aesop, Cervantes, Voltaire and Grimm are world famous men who knew well the effectiveness of parables,
fables, and tales to teach morality, and to express ideas which go beyond natural experience, or even beyond
the grasp of ordinary language. But every culture has its own favorite stories and myths which can take
people beyond the dull, unimaginative realm of literal meaning, and inculcate particular cultural values,
through their emotional appeal. Whether these various cultural values are all equally correct, or correct at all,
is not to the point here. It is only to be emphasized that stories and literature are fundamental to the
development a persons ideas that are not concrete and earth bound, and that take us beyond the practical
realm of technology and getting a living. These enjoyable imagination exercises can also help to encourage
a larger picture of reality than our own limited experience, which in turn can lessen our sense of self-
importance. This diminishment of selfish feelings is complemented by the enlargement of objective thinking
the non-self which Bertrand Russell also placed among the benefits of philosophy.xviii

Can philosophy explain morality?

Can philosophy discover moral principles or only critique principles that are followed in real societies? Can
it guide people to moral growth (as Pythagoras, Epicurus, Confucius and Socrates tried to do)? Can it
explain, or confirm the existence of free choice? Can it provide guidance for moral growth? These are
questions this essay has been examining, with a critical, historic overview. At this point, Ill summarize and
synthesize some of this essays conclusions, which seem rationally consistent, although not conclusive or
compelling. Ive already argued in several places, that there can be no proof of such conclusions only
support.
Choosing morally Is selfishness natural?
Since the advent of the explicit idea that humans are as completely determined as any other part of
nature (proposed by La Mettrie and others), believers in determinism have been trying to prove the fact by
experimental evidence, with little success. Even so, believers in determinism try to discover and explain
mechanisms that cause peoples thinking and acting. It may be said, for example, that a persons conscious
actions (which are the only kind that are controversial), are caused by psychological motives (beliefs, hopes,
fears, desires, etc.), which in turn are caused by the persons upbringing and experience. As we have noted
earlier, J. S. Mill was one such thinker. From his perspective, no one can properly be called immoral who
does what is said to be wrong, since that person could not do otherwise than what she did. Moreover, as
Mills mentor, Jeremy Bentham said, Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign
masters, pain and pleasure.xix He immediately adds that attached to these masters are [on] the one hand, the
standard of right and wrong, on the other, the chain of causes and effects. In my view, these two ideas are
inconsistent, since it makes little sense to say one should do what she cannot help but do. More importantly,
though, is the two mens utilitarian idea, that everyone is necessarily selfish, and that fact is all right. The
moral meaning of selfish disappears in utilitarian ethics. Its only necessary to make a persons innate
selfishness work in such a way that others will benefit as well, so that maximum pleasure will result where
there is a greater amount of happiness in a group than would exist if the person disregarded the effects of her
behavior on other people. Training a person, then, would be a matter of using pleasure and pain as tools to
guide self-interested children to become other-interested adults.
Unshakable conviction that humans are free Searle
John Searle deals with the free will problem in his book, Minds, Brains and Science (1984). His general
conclusion is that after more than two thousand years of thinking about freedom, most philosophers think
the problem has been solved by empirically-minded persons like Thomas Hobbes, David Hume and various
others, whose solutions have been repeated and improved right into the twentieth century. But Searle shows
that this belief is false. It is false, because, despite what physicists, psychologists and philosophers try to
show, there is an unshakable conviction on the part of all ordinary people including those professionals
themselves that they are acting with free will. This conviction stands, despite various efforts to prove that
free will is illusory.
Searle first points out that in taking action people normally consider various options, think of reasons for
one or another of them, and then act. In the process, they have a sense that they could have chosen
differently. People often try to prove they are not determined, because unlike the motion of the planets or a
ball moving on a pool table, their behavior is unpredictable. Psychologists counter this claim, by pointing to
cases, like hypnotism, in which actions are indeed predictable, even though the subject may give perfectly
ordinary reasons for her action that appear meaningful. Searle points that such cases are not at all normal,
and subjects do not experience the same feelings of alternate possibilities while choosing under hypnotism,
as they do in ordinary cases. This suggests that generally a persons actions do accord with her reasoning,
accompanied by the feeling that she could have acted differently, which actually undercuts the psychological
explanation for actions. True, we normally act on the basis of prior psychological states our beliefs, hopes,
fears, desires, etc. and in that sense, those states function causally. But this form of cause and effect is not
deterministic. We still feel we might have acted different, without any of the states changing.
But the psychological argument for determinism is not the strongest. A more troublesome problem is the
idea that everything in nature including our brain physiology and psychological states is caused from the
bottom up. Its simply a basic tenet of science that the surface appearance of everything is ultimately a
function of the actions and interactions of the smallest elements of matter. Searle doesnt try to counter this
most basic support of determinism; he simply shows that it will not dissuade anyone from the thought (the
experience, really) that intentional behavior is invariably accompanied by the sense of alternative courses of
action open to you. We are not always active; sometimes we perceive ourselves as being passive. For
example, Searle refers to the experiments of Wilder Penfield (18911976), where electric stimulus to some
parts of a subjects brain will cause her body to respond with movements or gestures. But these are not
actions, because she doesnt sense that she is in charge, but is passive. She perceives herself moving, but not
in the same sense as when she acts intentionally.

If one tried to express it in words, the difference between the experience of perceiving and the
experience of acting is that in perceiving one has the sense: This is happening to me, and in acting one
has the sense: I am making this happen. But the sense that I am making this happen carries with it
the sense that I could be doing something else. In normal behavior, each thing we do carries the
conviction, valid or invalid, that we could be doing something else right here and now, that is, all other
conditions remaining the same. This, I submit, is the source of our unshakable conviction of our own
free will. It is perhaps important to emphasize that I am discussing normal human action. If one is in the
grip of a great passion, if one is in a great rage, for example, one loses this sense of freedom and one can
even be surprise to discover what one is doing.xx
The difficulty of a philosophical approach
Ive tried to make clear from the beginning of this essay, that the problems involved in thinking
philosophically about morality, freedom, and natural law, cannot be resolved. That they have not been
resolved yet is shown clearly in the views expressed by Searle, above. That they cannot be resolved is a
matter of belief, based on the perspective (expressed throughout my study) that believing in moral
responsibility, freedom and a higher law must remain matters of choice. Otherwise, no one could live a truly
good life, nor gain the benefits of such a life, which is the purpose of life, intended by the loving source of
everything.
The ideas about moral choice outlined throughout this study are problematic for several reasons. The
first is their apparently abstract and intellectual tone. To me they reached their apex during the
Enlightenment especially with Kant. As we have seen, some critics (e.g. James) said they are
unrealistically rationalistic; indeed, many thinkers have objected to the rationalism of the Age of Reason.
I sympathize with this criticism. I dont think a person has to be sophisticated or intellectually highly
developed to be moral. Kant certainly was not an intellectual snob, and he openly criticized academics whose
ideas seemed isolated from ordinary people, and affected by their social standing. He was personally
approachable, and unassuming. Furthermore, he said it doesnt take philosophical sophistication to be able to
know what is right. The same is true of Swedenborg. They both wanted to reach people of ordinary rational
ability. Even so, Kants confidence lay in the power of reason. He was a philosopher of the classical bent.
Philosophy is by tradition an intellectual endeavor, however much its practitioners may try to use language
within the grasp and experience of ordinary people.
I admire Kant as a moral person; and he is probably the greatest modern philosopher. But in his ethical
philosophy, he demands that a person have no hint of self-interest in regard to intentions. He thought every
truly moral deed must be done in accord with a moral principle (maxim), and that principle must be the
agents sole motive. It seems to me this is a standard that too few people can meet. This is one reason that I
favor Swedenborgs views. But Swedenborgs ideas about morality are, in a sense, not purely philosophical.
As long as religion is bracketed out of discussions of morality, I think Kant expressed the most reasonable
and satisfactory view of the subject. But philosophical approaches to morality seem always to fall on
stumbling blocks. For instance, there is the discussion of goodness in Platos Euthyphro. At the end of that
dialog, Socrates poses a question that is left unanswered: Is a deed good because it pleases the gods, or does
it please the gods because it is good?
Every good person has a good will, and every person of good will is a good person. But what is a good
will, and how is that developed? A good will may be shown as a commitment to be a good person or do the
right thing. The concept of good person emphasizes the character of the doer, which is lasting. The concept
of the right thing emphasizes the deed and its outcomes. Kant emphasized the character or mental state,
saying that a good person must have the motive of following the moral law, because it is the law, and for no
other reason. By contrast, Mill believed that goodness is a function of consequences, in terms of the
happiness produced by any deed, regardless of the motives involved. It isnt necessary to go further into the
arguments involved in this issue, which continue to be controversial. Swedenborg took a position in between
these views. A good person is one of good will, but the good will must be developed and incorporated
through good deeds. Kants and Mills goodness can be accomplished by human efforts. Swedenborg says
that goodness can develop only with the aid of spiritual influences.
In practice, I think good character and good deeds are intimately linked. An agent with a good mind state
will produce good outcomes, if she is motivated by a true sense of moral principle, which is a matter of right
teaching. I have no doubt that morally good motives will produce happiness, both for the doer and for those
who are affected by her actions in the world. However, as Swedenborg points out so many ways, morality
does not originate in the world. Mills view approaches goodness from a material perspective, while Kant
takes the opposite view. My only criticism of Kant is his hesitation to go more into the spiritual aspects of
good. He stops at the idea of obedience to the moral law, which transcends nature. This is understandable
and proper for a person who wished to stay devoted to the search for truth by philosophical reasoning,
without appealing to matters of faith, regardless of his own religious perspective. But where does this moral
law come from?
It seems that, for Kant and others, the higher law is just the way things are, in the transcendent realm.
But why are there two realms, each with its own set of laws? Perhaps there are yet other realms, which are
inconceivable. Kant doesnt entertain this thought, or make sense of his belief, as Swedenborg does. The two
realms are sufficient, and necessary, to accomplish the purpose of their loving, divine source i.e. to bring
happiness to humans which makes the universe meaningful and good as it is, rather than meaningless and
devoid of value.

Summary of our Demotic era


From Dawn to Decadence
Since the end of the 18th century, increasing tolerance of unsupported opinions, and skepticism of
authority seem to have undermined the original Enlightenment confidence in objective truth, and universal
values. We discussed this earlier, under the rise of romanticism. Although the extreme sentimentality of early
19th-century fiction was soon ridiculed and rejected in the name of realism, romanticism remained dominant
until the present, but in different forms. Whatever names one might use to describe them, later trends in
modern thought to the present contain several romantic characteristics relative to our discussion. One is a
disregard for authority. This could be distrust of academic research, or professional expertise. It might be
conflicts with law enforcement, or distrust of politicians, especially at the federal level. It could be disregard
for social conventions of civility and propriety (which are mislabeled as hypocrisy), in favor of blunt or
crude manner of speech and action, which masquerades as honesty. The U.S. presidential election campaign
of 2016 gives painful evidence for how widespread is this characteristic.xxi
Another trait of todays society is extreme skepticism, both about the existence of standards of value (as
in Nietzsche and Sartre), and in its belief that truth especially religious truth is subjective (as in
Kierkegaard). In its more radical (i.e. academic, social-scientific) forms, it is linguistic relativism
(exemplified by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis), which suggests languages determine the way people see the
world, and there is no true language. This view can bring even science and mathematics into doubt. xxiiThe
other romantic trend of modern thought is an extreme individualism, linked with a belief in the authority of
feeling. Paradoxically, the latter leads to a sense of isolation, attended by anonymity, and impersonal mass
culture.
These trends constitute much of what is called post-modernism, developed in the late 20th century. We
live in demotic times a term used by Jacques Barzun. Ours is a mass culture viewpoint, which does not
seek true democracy. Instead, it seeks unrestricted personal freedom, in terms of choice and life style, and
makes societal institutions that encourage, and try to satisfy, limitless claims to the rights of every interest
group, which cant be satisfied.

End of an Age democracy and scientific materialism

This essay is intended as a summary of ideas about morality, freedom, science and spirit, and their
interrelations in the history of western culture. For that reason, most of the conclusions I draw are based on
generalizations which I offer as factual. This is not, and makes no claim to be, good science. The essay also
includes many opinions, my own and other peoples. I think this summary supports the conclusion that
modernity has steadily become alienated from morality, both in terms of thinking, and in practice. The
assumptions that inform these pages should be transparent. They center on the claim that genuine morality is
not possible without freedom of thought and choice, and that this freedom can best be understood when
human nature and responsibility are seen from a perspective that goes beyond nature, to engage a spiritual
reality, and even better, a loving divine One.
Much in this study is offered as cultural criticism, which is largely a matter of interpreting, assessing and
evaluating generalities about what happens in various societies at various times. In turn, many of the
generalities are themselves based on claims that are questionable. So in many ways, both the assessment
offered here of what is happening, and the critical judgments about it, are subjective. I cant say whether
these views are shared by many or few. For the past sixty years, Ive looked critically (the curse of a
philosophical mindset) at trends in the popular and intellectual culture of this and other western countries.
Clearly there are other thinkers who have seen similar cultural characteristics, and come to similar
conclusions, from before the start of the 20th century to the present moment. That they and I agree is
gratifying. However, the points of agreement are discouraging. In any case, Ill cite one well-expressed
example, showing how America during that last century looked to another critic who lived through most of
it.
Jacques Barzun
Jacques Barzun (19072012) spent his long academic life at Columbia University (formerly Columbia
College), as a student and a history professor, from 1924 to 1975. After retirement, he continued writing until
his death, at age one-hundred and four! The scope of his thinking is shown in the title of his dense, eight-
hundred-page masterwork, published in 2000: From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural
Life, 1500 to the Present, from which the following ideas are taken.
Barzun treats the past five hundred years as an era, with an indefinite beginning and end, similar to
Ancient Rome, or The Middle Ages. The title From Dawn to Decadence also suggests a moral evaluation. I
think Barzun would say all historians make value judgments, and the effort to just tell it like it is is an
impossible and improper pretense.
The era began with the Renaissance, and the spirit of emancipation through knowledge
emancipation from ignorance, from superstition, from arbitrary political power, from dogmatic religious
authority, from the view that this world is owned by Satan, and the like. This spirit of emancipation is a
theme, throughout the five centuries that Barzun chronicles, rising and falling in shorter cycles, marked by
the endless conflict of various interest groups (rulers, religious leaders, scholars, business men, tradesmen,
artists and artisans, warriors and ordinary workers). One group after another tries to liberate itself from what
it considers oppression. In addition, the thinking and living conditions of everyone is impacted by
developments in science and technology. Barzun deals with many sub-themes, through various periods, but
the last of these is the focus of our conclusion, coinciding roughly with the 20th century.
One great issue seems to dominate the intellectual discourse of this period: can a true representative
government be developed? It would be the final step in emancipation, visualized as the realization of
democracy. Every high school student believes that (disregarding slaves) democracy began in Greece, but
it was best achieved in the late 18th century, in the founding of the United States. Unfortunately, the belief is
misguided. True, Greece did try rule by the people, but Plato and Aristotle showed the weaknesses of that
form of government, and what the Founding Fathers started here was a system that never has been fully
representative. Meanwhile, here and abroad, emancipation has been mistaken for freedom, and it remains a
dream.
Throughout the 20th century, this hope of emancipation has been marketed in the language of
democracy. Barzun rejects this term, because its vague, shifting meaning depends on context. Moreover,
democracy doesnt and cant exist in the form its Greek original meant direct rule by the demos (people)
voting on every question but perhaps in some other form approximating the popular will. Instead, he uses
the term demotic, or of the people (not to be confused with demonic, though the latter term comes to
mind, as developments in our society over the last century become clearer). In effect, the spirit of
emancipation at the beginning of the era, becomes the spirit of freedom at the end, with destructive and
decadent results. In effect, it demonstrates the failure of an illusion.
At the end of the 19th century, the perceived evils of unmitigated capitalism, in western Europe and
around the world, led G. B. Shaw and other idealists to hope for socialism, in which the people would truly
be in charge of society. In Barzuns language, this is the great illusion that characterizes the end of the 19th
century, and has continued up to the present. At the same time, in most of Europe, poorly administered
alliances among states, once under orderly but autocratic Austro-Hungarian rule, were fractured by the
disaffection of member mini-states who wanted to return to independence and former glory days. Moreover,
colonial powers like France, Italy and England, proud of their possessions, competed for more land and
prestige, and took offense at any perceived insult to their national pride. Add finally the old-fashioned
absolutist imperial government of Russia, which had the largest military, and various alliances, and the effect
was to make all of Europe bristle with weapons, preparing for and fully expecting the next war, which most
people thought was inevitable. It started when a Serbian nationalist killed the arch duke of Austria and his
wife. A month later, Austrias ally, Germany, attacked Belgium on the western front, and The Great War
began. It was a horrible waste of life, but immediately after it, lingering resentment in Germany, and
revolution in Russia, led to World War Two, followed by fifty years more struggle for emancipation of
oppressed people in Europe and the Soviet Union, and a continuing struggle in dictatorial regimes around the
world, which has not ended, and indeed appears to be still growing.
In Western Europe, Great Britain and the U.S., dreams about emancipation morphed into what Barzun
calls a social revolution, in which the people demand freedom. This differs radically from responsible
participation in government, with a shared sense of community, and a willingness to compromise. At the end
of the 20th century, Barzun believes that society (institutions) and style (individual choices) the key
ideas of this period are generally at odds with each other. Socially, freedom means the expectation of
limitless rights to benefits, which societies are unable to provide. As demands and conflicts increase,
institutions multiply, hoping to meet demands, but always failing to satisfy. According to Barzun, when good
intentions exceed the societys capacity to fulfill them, decadence necessarily results, in the form of wishes
without actions a failure of will. In the machine age such as ours, these desperate efforts to meet
constituents demands lead automatically to a welfare state, not to a happy society. The earlier pluralism (the
melting pot) yields to separatism (the salad bowl). Classical education is ruined by gadjetry; and
outward changes substitute for inner changes. At the personal level, style means the life of immediate
gratification; fast is good, faster is better; fast food is fashionable. Criticism is unacceptable; authority is
unaccepted; conventions of politeness disappear; pornography and the atmosphere of sexuality is
everywhere, replacing real sexual relations.
The concluding paragraphs of Barzuns dreary summary, at the end of the modern era, speak of the
present state of affairs in America. He labels this the View from New York City, 2000, and imagines it in
the form of an anonymous writers prologue to her future history of our present age. Note the word
renascent at the end. Is there another Renaissance? What is being reborn?

As for peace and war, the former was the distinguishing mark of the West from the rest of the world. The
numerous regions of the Occident and America formed a loose confederation obeying rules from
Brussels and Washington in concert; they were prosperous, law-abiding, overwhelming in offensive
weaponry, and they had decided to let outside peoples and their factions eliminate one another until
exhaustion introduced peaceableness into their plans.
After a time, estimated at a little over a century, the western mind was set upon by a blight; it was
Boredom. The attack was so severe that the over-entertained people, led by a handful of restless men and
women from the upper orders, demanded Reform and finally imposed it in the usual way, by repeating
one idea. These radicals had begun to study the old neglected literary and photographic texts and
maintained that they were the record of a fuller life. They urged looking with a fresh eye at the
monuments still standing about; they reopened the collections of works of art that had long seemed so
uniformly dull that nobody went near them. They distinguished the styles and the different ages of their
emergence in short, they found a past and used it to create a new present. Fortunately, they were bad
imitators (except for a few pedants), and their twisted view of their sources laid the foundation of our
nascent or perhaps one should say, renascent culture. It has resurrected enthusiasm in the young and
talented, who keep exclaiming what a joy it is to be alive.xxiii
i Swedenborg, Divine Providence, #288.

ii See Swedenborg, Divine Providence #279.

iii Swedenborg, Interaction of the Soul and Body #2. Kant says what amounts to the same idea in A 96.

iv Divine Providence #s 199, 233.

v Swedenborg, Divine Providence #220.

vi See perspectives about reasons as motivators, including Humes Theory of Reason (HTR) in
Stephen Finley and Mark Schroeder, Reasons for Action: Internal and External, Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2015. See also Bernard Williams, Ethics and the Limits of
Philosophy (London: Fontana, 1985).

vii Jacoba Urist, What the Marshmallow Test Really Teaches About Self-Control, interview with
Walter Mischel, The Atlantic, Sep 24, 2014.

viii Michael Bourne, We didnt eat the marshmallow. The marshmallow ate us. New York Times
Magazine, Jan 10, 2014.

ix E.g., Swedenborg, Divine Providence #259.6.

x Marshal McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (N.Y: Mentor, 1964).

xi Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (N.Y.:
Viking, 1985).

xii Amusing, p. 47.

xiii Even a video voice communication, which seems to make communication live, has problems,
although perhaps the benefit is worth the cost. One item in the news of April 19, 2016 speaks to this.
An eighteen-year old woman in Ohio was with a seventeen-year old acquaintance and another male
acquaintance all of them drinking to the point of impaired judgment - when the young man began
sexual advances on the girlfriend. Despite the serious cries and protests of his sex object, the other
woman began to video film the rape on her video streaming app (Periscope). She later reported that she
got so caught up in the filming that she failed to try to stop the assault, or call for assistance. She was
live streaming the video to others, and receiving likes on their response messages. Needless to say,
this story went viral in the story-hungry media.

xiv See the website, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032455/trivia.

xv E.g., see Romeo Vitelli, Implanting False Memories, Psychology Today, Nov 4, 2012; and
Wikipedia, Recovered Memory Therapy.

xvi Fernand de Saussures Course in General Linguistics, published by two of his students in 1916, is
the best introduction to the meaning of language.

xvii See Wikipedia, Budweiser Clydesdales.

xviii See Bertrand Russell, The value of philosophy, Chapter XV of The Problems of Philosophy
(1912).

xix Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (London: Wilson &
Pickering, 1823).

xx John Searle, Minds, Brains and Science (1984), cited in S. E. Stumpf and James Fieser, Philosophy:
History and Problems, 7th Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008), Part II, p. 273.

xxi I recently saw this loss of propriety at close quarters, when a young female acquaintance came to a
social gathering, wearing a T-shirt, apparently unaware of the irony of the message printed on its front:
Fuck Conformity!

xxii For a short summary of linguistic relativism, see Language and Thought, at the website of the
Linguistic Society of America.

xxiii Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life (New York:
Harper Collins, 2000), p. 801

You might also like