14 DAY TRIAL // I don't think there is somebody who hasn't grown up without at least some elementary "moral principles" fed to him/her since he/she was very young. Whether it's the Christian moral doctrine( "Do not kill", "Do not steal" and so on) or some other kind of moral talk - either provided by some other religion or just some elementary life rules. Since kinder garden, we have been used to living in a world of rules, and everywhere we're surrounded by them , from the simple "do not walk on the grass", to the more complex "do not cheat on your spouse".
Some of the simplest and most successful moral systems are those provided by different religions. Let's take Christianity for example. I think it has been one of the most successful religions because its appeals to "love" in order to determine people to act in a certain way. You have to love God, love the other as much as you love yourself, be good and generous so that you could go to Heaven, etc. It's not like the old primitive "eye for an eye" rule. Christianity teaches about turning the other cheek, not being revengeful, accepting things as they come, because they must be God's will. I am not doubting the beauty and usefulness of this moral system, but at some point you get that feeling that it's a way of avoiding dealing with things - I mean if this life is all about accepting a lot of crap for which you must be rewarded in a different life, then you should at least get very good explanation for it.
Let's talk about one of the most acclaimed non-religious moral systems. I don't really know if this system is acclaimed because it belongs to Kant, and he is famous, or because people really believe they could handle such a severe set of rules (or at least hope they could!). Kant is basically trying to say: look, a moral doctrine that relies on such a subjective thing as love, like Christianity does, cannot really function properly. Love and other such subjective things are not permanent, and cannot be imposed on people. Reason is a lot more reliable, so we should build a system in the spirit of Christianity, but that is based on reason instead of subjective "affinities". This is Kant's "Categorical Imperative", a basic rule: don't do to others what you wouldn't like others to do to you, or in his words: do only what you think could become a universal maxim (applicable by anybody, anytime, anywhere). No matter what your feelings are, you shouldn't be led by them, but by this rule of reason. In this way people have a chance of getting along better - if all obey reason, they will all act morally, no matter what their feelings for each other are.
I must agree with Kant, people can't be forced into loving each other, and you can't really rely on that for making them act nice. On the other hand it's obvious that the subjective part in us is very important, our feelings matter a lot, and you can't expect people to wander around like perfect robots that have developed their reason so much that they do only what is right, no matter how they feel about it. I think we are all biased, we all apply double standards. Some people might make the progress of not being more indulgent with themselves and more severe with others? I mean they may be as correct as to demand from themselves the same they pretend others to do.
Nevertheless, I think it's almost impossible to treat everybody equally. I mean people are not the same, and we don't like them all the same. It happens almost every time that we accept a lot more from people we love or like than from others. It's known that some mothers tend to be very tolerant when it comes to their kids, for example. Or you might actually think a lot of what somebody does is so charming, if you love them, and then, looking back when the love is gone, wonder how come you tolerated all that. It's almost impossible to force people to judge other people equally, because they could never completely ignore their feelings, and feelings are not impartial. It's equally impossible to force people to love everybody else. What would then be a good solution?
A possible solution is given by the well known doctrine called utilitarianism, and its many versions. The main thing is that utilitarianism is not essentially about rules, like the other moral systems we have been discussing; it's about actions and consequences. We don't have a fixed set of rules we have to obey no matter what, but we adapt the rules according to circumstance. Two of the most important strands of utilitarianism are (according to Wikipedia): Act utilitarianism that states we must first consider the consequences of our actions, and from that, make an appropriate choice that would then generate the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people involved. Rule utilitarianism states that we must consider the consequences of a rule instead (e.g., will it cause a slippery slope or other logical fallacy or ill deed), then follow the rule which would best yield the most happiness for the most amount of people involved.
I think utilitarianism might be the most efficient strategy, with the risk that it might lead us to relativism and give us a way of justifying being biased. Nevertheless, since there seams to be nothing we can do about it - because we are essentially biased and subjective, the best we can do is try to do it without hurting people too much. Or we may be even more radical and say we do not need any kind of moral to live by, or any kind of rules to function, that we could as well go only by aesthetical principles, a style of life Oscar Wilde used to promote. Whatever is beautiful is good, and if we learn to appreciate beautiful things we will have a charming life. I don't completely disagree with that, only what can you say if somebody finds great aesthetic pleasure in killing others for example? So, back to utilitarianism, then? I guess.
