Alexander Solzhenitsyn On Good And Evil
Reg Naulty, Canberra and Region Quakers
The great Russian novelist Alexander Solzhenitsyn argued his position on the objectivity of morality in speeches delivered in the United States and Great Britain in 1975 and 1976. As most people now appear to have a subjective view of morality ie., it all depends on the culture and the individual – it is instructive to see what his view is.
Solzhenitsyn’s position is that it is not good enough to get by with moral pragmatism ie., whatever works will do. It is also necessary, he maintains, to choose what is noble and honourable. He argues that law is now more highly esteemed than morality; it is entered down with precision in official documents and treated with respect. Morality, on the other hand, is regarded as something inchoate and amorphous. But, according to Solzhenitsyn, morality is higher than law. It is where law should come from, and law should be an attempt to embody it in legal rules. In the Western World, it is almost a joke to use the phrase “good and evil.” Fifty years after he spoke, this has not changed.
Why has morality such a poor reputation? The answer is no doubt complex, but part of it comes from Solzhenitsyn’s own words that morality is something “above us.” To many people, especially moral philosophers, that is red rag to a bull. In the Middle Ages, philosophers turned to theology to ascertain what the world is like. Not any more. They now turn to science. Science recognizes many unobservables , but nothing resembling morality. A common inference is that there is no such thing.
Another reason for doubting that morality comes from somewhere “above us” is the difference that exists among moralities. Different cultures have their own moralities. Some practice infanticide and some don’t. Some imprison and kill political prisoners and some don’t. There is no question about any one being morally superior to the others. They are just different, it is often argued.
But given that morality is beyond the physical, as Solzhenitsyn holds, how do we get it into a public morality? An excellent illustration of how it may be brought down to earth is given in a recent book The Worth of Persons, The Foundation of Ethics, by the Australian philosopher James Franklin, a mathematics professor turned philosopher. The “worth” in persons is something we sense in each other and is not detected by science. No microscope will reveal it, but we recognize it.
The Quaker practice of silence should facilitate the morality “up there” coming down to us, and should make us sensitive to the worth of others. And we can always learn more about it from our Friends. Our cultivation of non-violence is a response to the worth of others, and is a step towards a peaceful community.
Related Posts
Positive Peace and Makaratta
David Evans, South Australia and Northern Territory Region Meeting Positive Peace War in the...
Read MoreA letter to Quakers: principled impartiality
A letter to Quakers: principled impartiality Aletia Dundas, New South Wales Regional Meeting Dear...
Read MoreKnow thy Friend: Jan de Voogd
In conversation with Rae Litting, New South Wales Regional Meeting Jan tells me his life is made of out of four components – music, boats, peace, and Quakers. He says that music is his passion. Jan started to learn to play the...
Read More
0 Comments