The eCrozier

Scientists are studying the nature of morality more and more these days even as our culture moves farther away from morality’s former theological grounding. A recent study in the journal “Social Psychology and Personality Science” bears this out. Even though Ben Tappin & Ryan McKay, researchers at the University of London, entitled their study “The Illusion of Moral Superiority,” the study revealed less about how we view ourselves as morally superior to others (and we do, by the way) and more about how unmoored we are from any sense of a “Higher Power” when it comes to determining what constitutes moral behavior, whether in ourselves or in others.

Tappin & McKay write: “Most people consider themselves paragons of virtue; yet few individuals perceive this abundance of virtue in others.” Ok, but I knew that already. I actually that learned years ago…from Jesus. He said we’re all hypocrites about morality. To wit: “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye’, while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye” (Matthew 7:3-5). So, the study results were hardly revelatory. The question is: Why was that news to Tappin & McKay and other researchers studying morality? They claim the results of their study show there’s an evolutionary basis for this behavior; that it’s evolutionarily advantageous to perceive others as acting less morally than we do. They say it’s about group self-protection. Our Church’s catechism tells us that such ignorant behavior is simply part of our fallen human nature. In some ways, I don’t think it matters if we discover evolution is the source of this behavior. It’s hypocritical nonetheless.

And, here’s a further rub, as the morally-compromised Hamlet might say. Tappin & McKay also argue morality itself is a vague concept. They contend: “You can have one person who cares very deeply for their friends and family and would go to the ends of the earth for these people. And yet they don’t give a dime to foreign charity. And then you’ve got another person who spends their entire life donating money overseas, yet in their interpersonal life, they don’t treat their family members very well. In those cases, how do you compare who’s more moral? It seems quite impossible to judge and it’s just at the mercy of people’s preferences.”

I find their statement absurd. The first person they reference is behaving morally when she shows care for her friends and family and not when she shows disregard for others. Likewise, the other person is behaving morally when he donates money to those in need, but not when he treats his family poorly. In this example, why is it so hard to see neither one as “more moral” than the other? Not one of us is consistently moral or immoral. We’re “mixed bags” who regularly prove ourselves to be the hypocrites we are. That’s self-evident simply by reading the news each day. Some of us struggle with that obvious truth because we no longer live in a culture that’s even remotely grounded in a sense of what’s moral. We were never grounded in it deeply and the news this week exposes our ongoing inability to recognize immorality when we see it.