Competence is Moral
“From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time”
― Friedrich A. Hayek, The Constitution Of Liberty
“In December 2013, the FAA began its new hiring process, discarded its long use of the difficult cognitive-assessment test, and implemented instead a new, unmonitored, take-home personality test — a Biographical Questionnaire.” (Pendley)
This can be seen as an all but natural extension of the identity politics that has become front and center in social justice, a moniker that cannot be truly differentiated from conventional justice. The word “social justice” presumes that differences in opportunity amongst social groups must be resolved through legislation rather than communal collaboration and consensus.
Having morality be imposed through the lens of power dynamics, be it fair or unfair, only serves to perpetuate division and strengthen our identity-based attachments.
Whenever perceived unfairness comes to influence moral discussion, there must always be a victim and a perpetrator. This is the basis behind all movements based on institutional oppression, whether that’d be contemporary gender movements (i.e. both third-wave feminists and men’s rights activists), racial groups (i.e. black lives matter), or LGBTQ activists. This dynamic even exists in moral debates not necessarily centered around identity politics such as the abortion and gun-control debates. In all of these examples, there exists a perpetrator that is unknowing complicit in an oppressive system of their own making. This supposes that all the problems faced by the victim groups can be attributed to the willful blindness that the perpetrators have towards their own privileges.
Now, the usual argument against this blameful mentality is that it creates needless victimhood. It is a vice that gets in the way of policy that will actually alleviate documented unfairness. That is not the same as addressing generalized platitudes of oppression.
The argument here, instead, is that this form of legislated morality has endangered lives simply because it fails to address human necessities that do not fall under the scope of identity.
This is where different frameworks of morality would come into play. One example of morality that veers away from the rhetoric of institutional unfairness is that of utilitarian morality. To cite “Ethical Justice” on the three prevailing theories of justice, it is stated that, “Utilitarians tend to be among those who see no major divide between justice and morality. Utilitarians see justice as part of morality and don’t see justice to have a higher priority than any other moral concern. In particular, utilitarians think that we should promote goodness (things of value), and many think that goodness can be found in a single good; such as happiness, flourishing, well-being, or desire satisfaction.” (The Three Theories) Although utilitarianism argues that morality and legislation should not be kept apart, it does advocate for a worldview free from classist thinking.
Notice how utilitarianism is based on the fulfillment of basic human desires. In doing so, it paints no common enemy for the ego to hold on to.
Yet, because this system of morality fails to address the issue of basic necessity (an issue that is independent of “institutional oppression”), it may not be adequate in weighing the importance of passenger safety over the emotional needs of less qualified, albeit more diverse recruits. This is going off the assumption that less qualified recruits do have an unspoken need for inclusion (which seems to be highly unlikely).
So is there a viable moral framework that addresses human necessity beyond the scope of identity or forced inclusion?
This is where morality based on shared human commonalities rises to prominence. Such a system of morality could be called “transcendent morality” or “spiritual morality” (to quote Leo Gura from Actualized.org), as it is a system of morality void of egoic identification. Not only does there cease to be a common oppressor; it also supposes that all humans share the same basic existential problems. In its transcendence of victimhood, this system of morality allows people to investigate the heart of human dissatisfaction. This is how all spiritual leaders came to their supreme truths throughout history. Even the Buddha discovered the Four Noble Truths using this very way.
- The truth of the existence suffering (Dukkha)
- The truth of the origin of suffering (Samudāya)
- The truth of the cessation of suffering (Nirodha)
- The truth of the path to the cessation of suffering (Magga)
(Religions - Buddhism)
To end on one of my upcoming poems, “The Myth”
“What does one see, in the eyes of the “evil”?
Scum of the earth, irredeemable peasant
What do we admire in the eyes of the “pure”?
Oh, bless your heart, now “Here’s your present!”
Who do we see as the face of greed?
We call it the ego, the child we feed.
Who do we believe is one of the free?
Those of wisdom, false difference believed.
When will this world come to this plane?
When we dare to surmount the mask of shared pain
And put on another in its place.
The mask of our ideals.”
Works Cited
Pendley, William Perry. “The Quota-Driven Drive to Make Flying More Perilous.”
New York
Post, New York Post, 4 Jan. 2016, nypost.com/2016/01/03/the-quota-driven-drive-to-make-flying-more-perilous/.
“Religions - Buddhism: The Four Noble Truths.” BBC, BBC, 17 Nov. 2009,
www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/beliefs/fournobletruths_1.shtml.
“Three Theories of Justice.” Ethical Realism, Ethical Realism, 22 Jan. 2012,
ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/three-theories-of-justice/.
Comments
Post a Comment