Moral Intelligence?

[Crocus]

On the radio this morning I listened to this very interesting talk and interviews on moral intelligence. The question asked was what is moral intelligence, because it's different to every culture globally. We all may see moral intelligence in a different way and what is moral to one is not necessarily moral to someone else. This whole debate came about as a result of quite a few cases of xenophobia we are experiencing in the townships in the country at the moment. People are being very incensed about the government handing out houses to illegal immigrants from Zambia, Zimbabwe, etc. as oppose to those who are still waiting for up to 10 years for houses to be handed out to them. Also because these "immmigrants" are willing to work to earn an income and by doing this, 'taking' work from those who are born and bred here. Also when do we become aware of moral intelligence? Parents lead by example and when we go to school, a certain amount of moral intelligence has been instilled in us.

Going to school is the first "organised institution" we attend. It's also here where we realise that other kids think and do different from us and most probably we want do what they do. This is here where we as a human being must make a decision (even at a very young age) whether what my parents taught me is what I do believe in, or no, what you are doing and saying, is more important to me, whether it is correct or not in the eyes of society. This are being carried through your whole life by decisions you make as to what is wrong or right for you and not to care what others say or do, not go with the flow, so to speak. According to this program, this is where moral intelligence comes in. What are your views?

[jazzactivist]

That sounds like a really interesting programme, crocus. I have also listened to coverage about the antipathy towards immigrants in South Africa which sounds really horrible, but not unsimilar to attitudes in the UK - except that the scale of violence in SA is greater based on the cultural history of violence there and inter-tribal values and moral codes.

I think that the main problem in the world today is that moral intelligence is under-developed as everyone is being continuously told that we can buy what we need in life, and that 'sharp' business practices that put profit before people are acceptable and even encouraged, and we are all encouraged to absorb these into our own lives too. It seems that dishonesty, lying, exploitation, carelessness and secrecy are all glorified in a business context, and because this is the dominant force in western society it knocks any 'moral legs' out from underneath us and teaches children and young people that having morals and caring for others are secondary to financial gain. Our morals are based on our values. To try to help the students that I teach to establish what their core values are I always ask them "what would you risk your life for?" or "what would you save in a fire?" The older students usually respond with "my kids / parents" or "the right to personal freedom / or personal documents" whereas the younger ones usually mention property eg "my iPod", "my car", "my designer sunglasses" etc. It is really interesting how there has been a shift in what people value from people and moral concepts to possessions. Or maybe there has always been a generational difference?

I agree with you that children learn their first set of moral codes in the home, and these are either strict or so mixed that they don't offer a clear pattern. It is only when we meet with others that we start to question our family's moral standards and then slowly develop our own set, which may or may not be similar to our family's. As you say, every type of behaviour has some sort of moral code behind it - even crime - and some people argue that it is this clash of moral standards that creates disharmony in societies.

[Crocus]

Exactly Jazz. That's where the question came in of moral intelligence. Because if my moral standards are not the same as yours for instance, mine being the 'lower' standard, then should'nt I have the moral intelligence to realise that I'm wrong and your right? So many times it's rather the "higher" standard that's more than willing to lower their standards to fit in, and not the other way round. To me there is a difference between moral standards and moral intelligence. If I have a very low moral standard, hopefully I will have the intelligence to realise it and change it for the better.

As you've rightly said Jazz, the clash of moral standards causes a lot of heartache, pain and disharmony. It's exactly this which is the cause of violent crime in the townships at the moment. People are being necklaced Jazz, they are burnt to death! How awful can that be? I'm so horrified by this it actually makes me feel sick. No matter your reason, no matter what, this is a heinous act.

[jazzactivist]

That's a real pity that 'necklacing' has come back into fashion in SA - if it ever went away. It is an absolutely horrible thing to do to people (in case ayone reading this doesn't know - a car tyre is soaked in petrol and placed around someone's neck and set alight). This type of behaviour between people who have little and people who have nothing is often incited by governments to divide and rule a sudden increase in population, ensuring that the 'little' group and 'nothing' group constantly switch positions and spend time and energy fighting one another rather than making demands on the government. Often these groups are so engrossed in their hatred of one another, and their sorrowful feelings about themselves, that they don't notice what is really happening to them, and the situation just spirals on down.

I like your philosophical argument, but I don't necessarily think that moral intelligence and general intelligence are the same thing, though. To me, general intelligence is the ability to be able to process a range of information and think critically about it, whereas moral intelligence is more specialised - the ability to think critically and creatively about moral issues and then be able to apply our findings to our lives. Therefore, someone with 'low' moral standards may not have the general intelligence to know it, or someone with a high level of general intelligence may use this to argue the case for their own low moral standards (I am surrounded by these types in the university!). I think that wealth and priviledge lead people to adopt low moral standards, or none, as can be seen in the behaviour of lots of rich and famous people. It seems that when you have bought everything that money can buy then the next frontier is to experiment with what you can get away with. Not that I think that poor and disadvantaged people are noble and moral, as is quite often put forward as an argument. It seems to me that poor and disadvantaged people today usually want to aspire to the types of behaviour that the rich and priviledged display, and this is encouraged by the idea that consumerism can create equality and that celebrities are the barometer for current moral standards.

[littlemiss]

jazz i completely 100% utterly totally agree with you on all points, the moral values of society are steadily spiralling downwards towards consumerism, comercialism, self importance and image, children are bombarded more than ever with advertising imagery that encourages the want for pointless 'things' to portray an image of who they are and what they wanto be, and often not educated enough to process thought on who they are and what they can be as a person. i also think that every class has its different moral standards, for some, bad language is seen as 'common' and wearing a tracksuit is unthinkable and seen as something an underachieving person would do yet drink driving is the norm and socially acceptible, and like fashion and fads, some of these standards slowly change over time, these are all ideals and standards that in a way our parents have instilled into us by exposure into certain social circles whatever level they are, and they are perpetuated and driven by the media.

[littlemiss]

and i wanto add, what hopes can we have as a society when young children are purposely targeted by unscrupulous companies, just look at the bratz cartoons and dolls for little girls, plastic prostitutes wearing too much makeup, miniskirts, bikini tops and thigh high boots, giving off the message to young girls that to achieve what you want out of life you have to look and behave like these characters, jordan the page three model has written books for little girls, each with a picture of her on the front cover wearing drag queen-esq makeup and sporting those huge breasts. the playboy logo has been a pet hate of mine for a long time and i was very glad to see the issue raised by a vicar who protested against it and pulled off all the playboy merchandise off the shelves in w h smiths last week, a company selling the biggest and most well known brand of porn for the last forty years or so making clothing and school items such as pencil cases etc with the bunny logo stamped all over it, how immoral is that! sexualising little girls, selling playboy bikinis for girls as young as seven, but it is the parents who buy or allow the children to have these products, and with parents giving off the message that this is ok its no wonder that little girls grow up thinking that its ok to be seen as something sexual and for boys to also think of girls in this way. disgusting!

[jazzactivist]

I agree with you, littlemiss, about the commercial use of the Playboy logo targeted at children. It is horrendous to see even very small children with bags, purses, pencil cases and hairslides with this logo on it - what a message to give out. When my niece was 9 years old she had a bedroom makeover and chose everything with the Playboy logo -even a satin duvet cover. Her mum didn't mind at all. When I pointed out to my niece what it really represented she went to school and asked her teacher and came back with the well rehearsed Hefner empire argument that the porn industry used the term Playmate for its merchandise and the current logo stands alone and is called Playboy so it has no connection - it is just a fun image of a rabbit! What about the magazine? Now that she is older she understands the debate a bit more and has ditched the Playboy items, but it only goes to show how young girls (and boys) are 'seduced' by this imagery.

Not that long ago Woolworths were in trouble for marketing revealing, lacy girls' underwear in red and black, in all sizes from age 3 - 11. They took them off the shelves after complaints, but the other day I saw a high street shop selling 'baby thongs' for the beach - eek! I really hate the way that turning a profit is becoming more important than the safety and wellbeing of people. Perhaps corporate responsibility should require companies to be morally responsible along with being environmentally and socially responsible, although if the big ones did all that they they would cease to exist!

[Crocus]

I can't believe what I've read now about thongs for babies and read and black lacy underwear for little girls! My goodness, why do you want to give a child the impression that she can wear this kind of underwear? As long as there's money in it, presumably they will just carry on. That's a lack of moral intelligence in my mind.

[jazzactivist]

I couldn't believe seeing it either, crocus, and had to do a double take. But both times there were women looking and buying! I was very glad to read in the paper that one mother took Woolworths to court and won. The baby thongs were in brightly coloured lycra, but still absolutely a bum revealing thong with a shaped front for boys and girls - suitable for ages 1 - 3! To me, this seems more sexualised than a baby going naked on the beach, although they are being marketed as a "freedom cover-up". To me, childrens underwear and swimsuits should look like traditional children's underwear, even if it has been updated a bit using modern materials and colours, not a mini adult version. I wonder when they would wear these sexy items, as if they are for everyday use then it gives the child and anyone else a strange impression. Likewise if it is kept for 'special occasions'.

[littlemiss]

i do believe that parents have a huge part to play in all of this, so much of a hint of makeup or a short skirt and my father would march me upstairs bellowing 'take that c**p off, youre not going out dressed like that!' and although at the time i thought that he was being totally unreasonable and unnecessarily strict, i did eventually grow up and realize why he reacted the way he did, he obviously didnt want me to be seen in a certain way and also knew that it was wrong to let a child be seen in a certain way, my mother and (step)father were both very young parents yet they used and taught the values that were instilled into them as children, my father was 19 when he married my mother but despite their ages they knew what was RIGHT and WRONG, today there are far too many parents who either dont know any better or just dont care, and if the parents dont do their best to instill and re-enforce values into children then teachers and other authorities have no chance

[Crocus]

Something I never did with my 3 boys was to let them run around naked on the beach or any place for that matter. You see it on the beach many times, little kids running around naked. I can not see why it's necessary! Many times you will hear the argument of "Oh, but they're only babies" but it doesn't count for me. I had a situation where the boys came back from school wide-eyed (10 years old) one day telling me that a girl in the class has told all the boys with (stars in her eyes) her mother bought her so many pairs of thongs in all colours available! Why tell the boys about it? If you buy your little girl that kind of underwear, what's the message you portray? I might be wrong here, but to me personally it's not right.