In The Dawn of Day, published in 1881, Friedrich Nietzsche asserted: “Morality has shown the stress of seduction ever since men began to discourse and persuade on Earth.”
Nietzsche was right. The question: “What is morality?” has always troubled philosophers.
Before we explore the application of the concept of “morality” in our daily lives, we must try to account for the philosophical character of the concept.
In other words, why is it that discourses on morality are regarded as a branch of philosophy?
Why do men of letters feel justified in dismissing as madness anyone who suggests that “morality” is a phenomenon in mechanics?
Asked differently, what distinguishes philosophy from other “concrete” branches of knowledge?
The answer lies in the simple observation made by Karl Popper that “in philosophy, methods are unimportant”.
Responding to the question “Why does a pen fall when I throw it up?” is not difficult for natural scientists. The workings of the force of gravity are well known, and can be verified by relying on testable methods.
But there is no standard method to answer the question: What is morality? It does not matter how old, grey-haired or learned the professors may be; they are all bound to offer different answers to this simple question.
When Gwede Mantashe met the Midrand Group recently, he complained bitterly that members of this group often accuse Jacob Zuma of immorality. “What is morality?” Mantashe asked.
We can assume that, by posing this question, Mantashe knew that, since philosophy is not the province of methods, members of the Midrand Group would not have a ready-made answer for him.
Given the political nature of the meeting between the ANC and the Midrand Group, there was indeed no room for a searching reflection on as important a question as: “What is morality?”
To approach the question as if it were purely a philosophical question is futile.
Since there is no agreed upon method for answering philosophical questions, there can never be an answer to satisfy Mantashe.
A pure philosophical question is one which has neither bearing on nor origins in the concrete world. Here is a perfect example: do you think Osama bin Laden is coping with hellfire?
The difficulties are obvious. What is hell? Does it exist? If so, is Bin Laden there? All these questions are useless. No one has ever lived in hell. No one could offer an answer any sane people would take seriously.
Because Zuma lives here on Earth, with us, we are not swimming in the pond of pure philosophy when we suggest that he is an immoral leader.
Our observations about Zuma arise from his concrete life, here on Earth. We hear him when he rambles about women, children and extra-training. We see him when he dances umshini wami. And indeed, we know that he has more than 20 children and many wives.
Viewed from this standpoint, morality ceases to be a mistress, seduced by men to discourse and persuade each other.
Linked to life in its concrete form, the concept of morality loses its pure, philosophical character; it descends to our daily lives of conventions, norms and standards.
When it reaches our social world, morality becomes an instrument through which mankind is enabled to distinguish right from wrong.
To deny this would be to deny the existence of a fundamental difference between beasts and human beings.
What is this fundamental difference?
All things that exist, except for those that are man-made, are part of nature. Beasts and human beings are the same in this respect. They are both part of nature.
However, unlike beasts, human beings possess a unique property that enables them to rise above nature. It is called consciousness.
Since beasts do not possess consciousness, they are unable to construct notions of right or wrong.
In broad daylight, and in full view of others, a rooster and hen climb on each other to mate – without shame. Why?
It is because beasts cannot rise above nature; they lack that enabling property called consciousness. When nature says “climb”, a cow does not hesitate – whether its children are there or not.
We humans don’t do this sort of thing. We have notions of decency, respect and we feel shy.
Consciousness enables us to rise above nature, to construct norms, ethics and standards that make it possible for us to defy even our very own mother, nature, unlike the animals.
We are thus able to distinguish between right and wrong. In other words, we have morals.
When we see an adult man urinating in public, we say he has no decency. Pigs don’t say that about one another; they do what nature instructs them to do – there and then.
Because human beings possess the enabling property – consciousness – their norms and values don’t remain static. They keep on revisiting and refining their cultures to conform to the demands of an ever-civilising consciousness.
Unless they are domesticated or conditioned by human beings, beasts don’t change their manners; they wake up, eat, drink, mate, fight, and repeat the same cycle over and over again.
Because they are permanently tied to nature, by lack of consciousness, beasts and all their children are sure to behave in the same way as their ancestors have behaved.
The children of human beings are fundamentally different from those of beasts; which is why human societies are dynamic.
The dynamism of human beings gives rise to necessary tensions in human societies.
Younger generations question the manners of older people.
Take the example of the young Zulus in South Africa who find the fact that Jacob Zuma has many wives uncomfortable.
When Zuma says: “It is my culture,” the younger generation of Zulus say: “No, you don’t represent us.” But both Zuma and these youths are Zulus. Yet their cultures clash. Why?
It is because the consciousness of human offspring, unlike beasts, enables them to benefit from the wealth of lived experience, and so they are capable of seeing wrong where their fathers used to see right.
In former times, human societies regarded women as property to be owned by men.
The man with many wives was regarded as the most powerful. Even the Bible is replete with stories of men with many wives and children.
It was once considered to be a blessing.
Today, no preacher of the word of God would suggest that, because of his many wives and children, Zuma is more blessed than the majority of South African men who are married to only one wife.
If a preacher were to make such a claim, he would most certainly be denounced by a great mass of God-fearing Christians.
Yet, a preacher in ancient times would have been praised as the bearer of truth if he so pronounced.
Herein lies the essential character of the dynamism of mankind. Our individual and collective consciousness as human beings evolves.
While we do learn from the past, our consciousness is not an incarnation of our forefathers.
Indeed, it is the very same enabling property – consciousness – that makes it possible for us to pass judgment on questions of wrong and right, which are essentially questions of morality.
When we speak of morality, we are expressing the essence of our humanity. We thus live out what differentiates us from beasts.
Therefore, when Mantashe claims not to know what morality is, he is unwittingly saying that he himself is not different from beasts.
When Thulas Nxesi claims not to understand why South Africans are angered by the pouring of more than R200 million into Zuma’s palace in Nkandla, Nxesi is unwittingly declaring himself a beast – that cannot distinguish right from wrong.
Approached from this perspective, as we have sought to demonstrate above, the concept of morality is removed from the field of pure philosophy where questions are detached from concrete reality.
He may not have been aware, but Mantashe’s question to the Midrand Group: What is morality? arose from the confusion that attaches to the world of pure philosophy.
Zuma does not live in the world of pure philosophy; he lives with us, here on Earth, where there are evolving norms, ethics, and standards.
Mantashe must understand that, by referring to morality as a “mistress of seduction”, Nietzsche did not mean to grant permission to Zuma to spend our money as if morals don’t exist. -The Sunday Independent
Mashele is CEO of the Forum for Public Dialogue and teaches politics at the University of Pretoria. He is a member of the Midrand Group.