Apathetically Yours,

Scanning through the NYT for noteworthy reads in the middle of last week, this Social Science article's entitled "Is ‘Do Unto Others’ Written Into Our Genes?" caught my eye. As far as the title goes, the precept 'Do Unto Others' seems straightforward enough to follow but upon close inspection, both the positive and negative connotations attached to it leave some questions, however incredulous, unanswered. The chief of which is why certain people choose a beneficent route to resolve a conflict while some enjoy a more despicable option to handling life's problems.

As a keen observer of societal norms and conventions, I am intrigued with the concept of morality and how it melds with various cultures and/or social groupings. In the article, a moral psychologist, Dr. Jonathan Haidt explores the origins and conditions that bring about the concept of morality.

His novel approach in dissecting the foundations of morality can be traced to the following two 'drivers' or mental systems, namely moral intuition and moral judgment, for which "the mind is scarcely aware of the difference" between the two. In fact, the dichotomy lies in the evolution of the two systems before and after the development of language respectively.

The emotional responses of moral intuition occur instantaneously — they are primitive gut reactions that evolved to generate split-second decisions and enhance survival in a dangerous world. Moral judgment, on the other hand, comes later, as the conscious mind develops a plausible rationalization for the decision already arrived at through moral intuition.

To further his understanding on the 'subterannean' or unconscious part of morality, Dr. Haidt visited India and subsequently discovered "a much wider moral domain" when compared to the Western concept of morality. As a result, he arrived at the following conclusion:

...He identified five components of morality that were common to most cultures. Some concerned the protection of individuals, others the ties that bind a group together.

Of the moral systems that protect individuals, one is concerned with preventing harm to the person and the other with reciprocity and fairness. Less familiar are the three systems that promote behaviors developed for strengthening the group. These are loyalty to the in-group, respect for authority and hierarchy, and a sense of purity or sanctity.

In other words, morality in its broadest sense acts as a restraint for any selfish behaviours. As expected, the individual-centric take on morality - dealing with justice, rights and the welfare of the individual - is high in Western countries, whereas the emphasis on group cohesion is prevalent in other societies around the world.

Eastern cultures are also where religion plays an important role in buttressing the innate moral systems, by way of providing religious-minded persons the means to cohere and bond within a harmonic setting. Thus, the concept of sanctity and purity, that encapsulates the teachings of major religions, forms an important moral foundation by ensuring that its people toe the line.

Following another study with a fellow graduate student, Dr. Haidt further theorised that a person's political leaning is influenced by his or her moral standing and/or beliefs.

They found that people who identified themselves as liberals attached great weight to the two moral systems protective of individuals — those of not harming others and of doing as you would be done by. But liberals assigned much less importance to the three moral systems that protect the group, those of loyalty, respect for authority and purity.

In other words, our position on the liberal-conservative spectrum depends largely on our attitudes with respect to these five moral components.

While Dr. Haidt's classification of moral virtues is debatable and therefore inconclusive, I believe in the essence of his research results - stressing on morality in societal living is the only self-respecting way to curb selfishness.

Alas, in today's frightening day and age, such moral components have been slowly eroded and de-emphasised in place of loftier goals of fast recognition, dog-eat-dog competition and material wealth. Moreover, by putting religious affiliations and practices on the back burner, we run the risk of accelerating the moral decay of our local communities.

I wonder if this phenomenon is partly the reason why some developing countries gradually morph into less orderly societies as they painfully align themselves to the difficult benchmarks set out by the developed nations. Granted, the individualistic moral imprints - fair treatment and justice - that define most Western societies shouldn't be underestimated for they, in my opinion, brought forth the civic-minded dimension in such individuals.

Irrespective of religious or political ideologies, unconditionally helping people in train station, opening doors for others, and other seemingly small yet selfless acts are common daily occurences in these societies. Unfortunately, on the other extreme, poor identification with group solidarity in some Western countries leads to the worst kind of behaviour - apathy. People tend to become callous and choose not to get involved in the plight of another man (or woman) on the street. This bystander effect - the term which was derived from the Kitty Genovese case - is widespread today because people's priorities, and likewise moralities, have shifted tremendously in the last 50 years.

Which brings me to the matters close to home. Following her burial last Friday, the sad, tragic murder case of Nurin Jazlin is still fresh in the minds of fellow Malaysians. Her abduction from the pasar malam (night street market) that fateful day of August 20th reinforces my unswerving belief in the bystander effect, where a person is less likely to help another when other people are present than when he or she is alone. Most importantly, the general feeling of apathy towards another human being is the overriding factor for inaction in situations such as the one that had gruesomely befallen this hapless eight-year-old.

Some people might cite that they are minding their own business and wouldn't want to be perceived as unnecessarily fussing over others. And yet, when it comes to their personal sphere, they wouldn't mind being a nosey-parker or a gossip-mongerer in dealing with affairs that are significant to them, or to their net worth. Evidently, when moral virtues disintegrate, selfishness and avarice take centre stage.

During the school days, I often wonder as the reason why we have to endure Pendidikan Moral (Moral Education) when such a thing, to me, is quite basic and practically uses our commonsense knowledge. In light of current bone-chilling events, I think the emphasis on moral education couldn't have been more urgent and apropos.

Image taken from here.