"Morality" or "moral values" in the context of law and government tends to be popularly associated with an established church and legal regulation of sexual morality, pornography, blasphemy and other matters which could be described as "social morality". The word "morality" is much wider than this — and it is the wider meaning that is used here. The dictionary defines morals in terms of ethics and right and wrong. The basic moral code of the Christian faith is mirrored in other religions and accepted by many who are agnostics and atheists. The common law, (see section 18.2) which is the foundation of the legal system, subject to alteration by Parliament, is based on Christian morality.
Morality includes such values as honesty, the pursuit of truth, responsibility, duty, fairness in interpersonal relations, concern for one's immediate neighbours, respect for property, loyalty and duty to one's spouse and children, the work ethic and keeping one's word. The emphasis is upon the duty and responsibility of the individual. No society can function efficiently or humanely and no civilisation can endure, without these values.
Honesty is essential for personal security. A lie is an abuse of another's faith. Lies demean the liar. Lies are at the root of unfair dealing and bad bargains. Therefore, lies stand at the root of personal oppression, conflict and litigation. Lies cover up worse sins and therefore prevent the rectification of wrongs.
Honesty to oneself is also important. It is necessary if one is to deal with reality (while there is time) instead of creating a world of illusion and self-deception which precludes all constructive response to problems and must inevitably lead to a greater debacle.
Dishonesty to oneself and one's neighbours has a way of returning upon one's own head. The liar creates a falsehood, which he must ever go to greater lengths to maintain if he is to avoid public disgrace. It can become his living nightmare. At the same time he is less able to face up to his disgrace because his practice of lying corrodes the courage which he needs in order to face the truth.
The pursuit of truth is a related and equally important value. It is necessary in order to be well-informed and in order to respond appropriately to real issues. It is necessary to the attainment of knowledge, which is necessary for all forms of progress.
Responsibility for one's actions is one of the most vital principles of a civilised society. An absence of personal responsibility is a licence for disorder, anarchy, oppression and dependency. Personal responsibility is the basis of the criminal law, the law of contract, the law of civil wrongs and the law of trusts. Responsibility to higher authority is the basis of accountability. Responsibility to others (of a person in authority) for dangerous things and irresponsible persons (eg minors) is the public basis of the safe and orderly regulation of those things and persons.
Personal responsibility cannot be evaded with excuses. In assuming the independence, authority and power of responsibility, the risk of failure and answerability is also assumed. In assuming the power to do good, the power to do wrong (for they are the same power) is also assumed. In assuming the power of independent action, the possibility of independent disaster (whether or not of one's own making) is likewise assumed. Thus, if a person forgoes responsibility he forgoes freedom, for responsibility is simply the moral character of freedom. Anyone who claims freedom claims responsibility. They cannot be divorced.
Personal misfortunes, unfortunate circumstances of upbringing and social disadvantage cannot justify wrongdoing. It cannot make wrong right. It may in certain circumstances be offered in mitigation. Personal misfortunes do not abrogate personal responsibility. (It is indeed, an enormously patronising attitude to the poor to regard poverty as a cause of crime). No matter how unfortunate an individual's circumstances may be, he is still responsible for his actions. Each man is responsible for his own moral condition, for what he becomes, for good or evil. Outside forces can have only so much influence upon a person's virtue as they are allowed to have. The effect which those forces have upon a person's character is determined purely by his response to them.
Freedom and responsibility cannot be claimed when all goes well and then denied when things go wrong. Any teaching which denies this and which denies responsibility or excuses irresponsibility, promotes wrongdoing, waste and imprudence. Every man is responsible for two things, the moral character of his conduct and the natural price or burden which his freedom (according to its extent) exacts from him.
Duty is the fount of right behaviour in the face of temptation to ulterior advantage. It is the sense of duty which hardens the will, to proceed in the face of drudgery or adversity. Duty is the mother of discipline. Without a sense of duty parents abandon their children, spouses are deserted, battle-lines left undefended, clients left unattended, studies and labours left incomplete, responsible offices left vacant.
Fairness in interpersonal relations encompasses honesty but also includes avoidance of abuse of privilege, of taking inordinate advantage of another's kindness, not taking advantage of another's obligation, not imposing oneself upon another's generosity. The principle is best summed up in the maxim, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It is thus permeated by a spirit of equity and goodwill.
Concern for one's immediate neighbours involves that care which human sensibility craves and that generosity which human frailty and necessitous circumstances must rely upon. It is more personal and therefore not so demeaning as a public welfare cheque. It is less open to fraud.
Respect for property is no less important than respect for person. Indeed, respect for property is one species of respect for person. Property is the stuff of personal independence. It is, therefore, an economic foundation of freedom. A society in which respect for property diminishes is one in which freedom diminishes. Robbery and the destruction of property diminishes personal independence, renders impossible particular activities and constitutes a personal affront. Expropriation of private wealth by the state substitutes a society founded upon state patronage for one founded upon individual freedom. Private property is an essential adjunct of individual freedom. As stated, to the extent that government controls property, government controls people.
Loyalty and a sense of duty toward one's spouse and children is the mainstay of family life. Sir Robert Menzies said that the family is the "foundation of sanity and sobriety". Strong families are necessary to nurture the young, give them values and discipline, care for the old and provide comfort and security for all members. A strong commitment is necessary to make a strong family. This includes loyalty, fidelity and a sense of duty. A nation of weak families is a nation in poverty, welfare dependency and depravity.
The work ethic is the foundation of production, wealth, independence and dignity. Financial security and welfare depend upon work. Investment growth (and therefore, employment) depends upon the wealth which accrues from productive work. Work instils personal discipline, channelling energies into constructive purposes.
Finally, keeping faith (keeping one's word) is important for the same reasons as honesty but is especially important for economic stability. Keeping faith means honestly performing contracts. Keeping faith is synonymous with reliability.
These are some aspects of traditional morality. The list is not meant to be exhaustive but the emphasis is deliberately upon personal duties and responsibilities. This principle of traditional morality constitutes the basis of the common law. They also constitute a moral code which provides the necessary restraints that maintain freedom. Freedom exists only in a society where people respect the rights and freedoms of others.
Moral systems are essentially built upon definitions of the nature of Man. Therefore, in seeking to answer the question, what kind of morality is important, it is necessary first to ask the question, what is Man? The conflict between traditional morality and New Class values is not a conflict between morality and neutrality. Any pretence that it is, is simply a rhetorical device in an attempt by the "new class" to place their views above criticism and to gain ground in the public education systems. It is a conflict between incompatible definitions of the nature of Man. The conflict is complicated by the fact that there are more than two such views. The differences between some of these are not always appreciated, with the consequence that there is, in practice, some degree of syncretism, that is, the construction of views which are composites of elements which are mutually incompatible.
Many definitions might be formulated and many different nuances might be captured. However, there are four basic kinds of views which may be encountered. One kind is the socialist view of Man as a race or species. Another, is the anarchic view of Man as an absolutely autonomous individual. A third traditionally accepted view is the view of Man as an individually created being, in the image of God. This last view implies subjection to a higher law, responsibility to a higher authority and respect by each individual for every other individual. The structural emphasis, therefore, in the traditional system of morality is upon individual autonomy subject to a duty to respect other people and a responsibility to exercise one's freedom in a lawful manner, that is, in accordance with the laws and institutions (such as the family), of God. The emphasis is clearly upon right behaviour in interpersonal relationships, personal duties and personal virtue and culpability. A fourth view would identify broadly with the third without the theist and religious dimension and stance
By contrast, under the socialist view, paramount emphasis is upon the race or species. The prime socialist virtue is subordination of the individual to the group. Man is the group. The will, the advantage, the happiness, the prosperity of the group is paramount over that of the individual. The consequence of this view is the development of a concept of social justice which entails more and more regulation of individual enterprise, and "rights" to welfare and social planning (and compulsory implementation of social plans) on an ever increasing scale.
The anarchic view focuses upon the individual as absolutely autonomous and therefore, free of all external constraints and obligations. Man is an individual, self-made, alone in his pristine independence. Whatever is expedient to him is moral or rather, nothing at all can be immoral for him. Because his autonomy is absolute, he is not constrained to respect the autonomy of others. He is subject to no higher law and to no higher authority. He is his own god. Conflict can only be resolved by pure power (whether in victory and defeat or in compromise). This view is completely relativistic.
It is possible for socialists to allot a subordinate place for the anarchic view within the socialist system on the basis of a doctrine that where ideology and policy has no interest, anarchy should prevail. This has led to the combination of policies of personal (especially sexual) permissiveness with policies of socialist intervention and regulation in most other areas of human activity. According to this adaptation, each man is his own god, subject to the higher species — god. This is the moral ideology of the "New Class". The religious dimension may also be accommodated within the socialist view on the basis that where ideology and policy have no interest, religion can be accommodated. Attempts are also made to justify socialist ideology by reference to the Bible (Christian Socialism and Liberation Theology).
The anarchic ideal has also frequently been confused with the traditional view, as an exaggeration of the individualism of the traditional view. This complication has increased the difficulty which liberals find in defining the limits of liberty, which has led at times to a departure from morality and a capitulation to relativism (including a feeling that misconduct and false thinking cannot be criticised). This, in turn, has led to a failure of will, amongst some of those who are personally committed to traditional values, to defend those values.
Traditional morality is inestimably important. Without it, all kinds of injustices and oppressions against individual persons are sanctioned; not the distorted and imaginary oppressions of Marxist theory but the real oppressions which arise when men forget the golden rule: love your neighbour as yourself. The abandonment of traditional morality is the cue for expropriation of private property, heavy taxation, theft, waste, compulsory association, totalitarian thought control, sexual exploitation, disloyalty to family, impoliteness, social engineering and genocide, not to mention impiety.
The values of a society derive from its spiritual and moral foundations. When those foundations are destroyed a vacuum exists and people can be manipulated according to the ideology and power ambitions of ruling elites.