Self-Actualization: A decline in moral law or an edification in humanity?
Tags: Religion, Morality, Philosophy, God

Is goodness inherent?

Photo by Jeswin Thomas from Pexels

In this, I want to ask a question, not for the purpose of answering it, that, I will leave to you. I will, however, hopefully provide enough evidence to help you along in trying to come up with an answer.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, there has been a high decline in the following of institutional moral laws, that is, the binary distinctions of good and evil which were enforced mainly by religious institutions. This decline occurred as a result of a societal revolt to the laws that segregated society based on man-made inventions of class. Members of the ‘lower’ class (the poor, women, Black People, minorities) began to fight for their stake in human freedom and this ultimately meant the destruction (or rather amendment) of the many oppressive laws which were supposedly founded upon ancient ‘moral’ laws that were formed for the greater good.

The invention of moral law was done in order to govern how people identified and how they related to one another. This was introduced for mainly two reasons, 1, all humans have an inclination to be different and to dream different so laws were created to ensure that these opposing ideas do not clash, and 2, for a single entity (be it a royal family, a deity or a government) to control and govern how people conduct themselves. Throughout history the latter reason has been the most prevalent, with new powers wishing to control and, at most, suppress human freedom. Monarchs, religious leaders, presidents and dictators all through history, have used the presence of moral laws for their own selfish ambitions, ultimately circumventing the same morality they preached.

In the search for true human freedom, the one thing that has been the most encouraged, especially by those who have broken the shackles of morality as given by human law, is that of self-actualization or finding your higher self. This is not a new idea that came with the mass societal revolt, odds of society such as Emmanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche have long battled with finding freedom in oneself before looking outside. In one of his last works entitled Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche gave an allegory of self-actualization using three examples, the camel, the lion and the child. In the example of the child the representation of a higher self leads to a person who wills their own destiny and makes up their own values in a liberated state of creativity and play.

The child is innocence and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self-propelling wheel, a first motion, a sacred Yes.

Nietzsche assumed that, in the absence of the accepted moral laws, all man is inherently good. That, in the absence of outside influence and norms, a completely pure ‘child’ will create their own values that won’t infringe on anyone else’s but will ultimately converge for the ‘greater’ good. Seeing as no one lives in a world devoid of human interactions, picture a group of young children in a playground. Let’s assume that none of these children have ever been exposed to an adult who instructed them on how to act in relation to each other. Nietzsche’s assumption is that these children will live in harmony with each other without butting heads, or if they did clash then it wouldn’t matter because every child’s values should hold true.

In the Christian biblical example of morality, God created two different sets of humans; He created the first ones and scattered them all over the world without specifying any governing moral rules for them except to have dominion over all that He had created. God then created Adam and Eve and placed them in His garden, but to these ones He gave a moral law that they had to obey. A clear “Thou shalt not eat of that tree”. Evil was then introduced to the world when Adam and Eve broke the first distinctive moral law. Since the bible follows the lineage of Adam and Eve and the other created humans are all ‘supporting’ characters, Nietzsche’s assertion of inherent goodness could hold, provided the first created humans were able to self-determine without the influence of a deity until the introduction of the law of Moses. This would mean that the other created humans were living in harmony with their individual values.

In defense of a deity-based moral law, Christian apologists like to ask the question; “What causes an atheist to want to do good not only for themselves but for others as well?” This question is asked in order to draw the conclusion that there’s a need to be good in all of us, which can link back to a good God.

Photo by Matheus Viana from Pexels

The process of self-actualization has to contend with two opposing sides of the same coin. If morality, and ultimately overall goodness, exists in all of us then finding identity in oneself and self-determining will lead to people being kinder to one another, thus edifying the whole concept of humanity that says we do for others not in expectation but because it is who we are. But if both evil and goodness can exist within a person, then the process of self-determination could lead to greed and selfishness as everyone would want their set of values to be upheld, no matter the external cost. I do understand that not everything is as clear cut as black and white or 0 and 1, but in a world with infinite variables, it is not far-off to assume the ultimate result would be one between either and or.

One thing remains true though, whether you believe in institutional morality or you do not, there is something about humanity that wants to be relational with the world. Even Charles Bukowski, with his many questionable traits, stated in his poem, The Crunch;

People are not good to each other/Perhaps if they were/Our deaths would not be so sad.

Although I am not attempting to answer the question posed, I will assert that for the survival of not just the world but its inhabitants, we do need to uphold each other to a certain standard of goodness, whether that comes through self-determination in the absence of a god or in following a set of supernatural moral laws, humanity depends on it. Albert Einstein drove this particular point home.