The Hierarchy of Loyalties and Ethics II

By Edgar Lores

Law is born from despair of human nature. - Jose Ortega y Gasset

Part 2 - The New Paradigm

The Model as a Representation of the Real World

In Part 1, we described the beginnings of the Hierarchy of Loyalty, its composition and some of its characteristics.

The observation made in Part 1 of the progression from selfishness to selflessness hints at the possibility for using the model as a tool in ethics.  It would also suggest that ethical conduct is inversely related to the distance of a construct from Self.

• The most unethical man is one who only thinks of himself.  Example: senators.
• The man with the highest morality is one who sacrifices his life for the benefit of others.  Examples: parents, firemen, Jesus.

Before we go further, let me perform a sleight-of-hand and re-enumerate the Hierarchy with a slight modification:

1. Gods

2. Worlds

3. Countries

4. Churches

5. Communities

6. Families

7. Selves

Voila, did you see that?  What have I done?  I have pluralized the constructs.  And simply by doing so, I have made the model a real representation of the world.  There are indeed many gods, many worlds, many countries, many churches, many communities, many families and many selves. Physically we have only one world until we colonize the moon and Mars.

This sleight-of-hand brings us smack bang into the era of postmodernism, an era just passed at the end of the last century.  Put simply, postmodernism is the view that there is not one single truth but many truths, and that our version of reality is our personal interpretation of what is out there.  It rejects the existence of ultimate truth and goes to the extent of positing that all versions of personal truth are in error.

In a word, postmodernism destroys the view, held since the time of Aristotle, that truth is monolithic, that it is absolute and universal.  Many have not heard at all about the news of postmodernism and are still locked into the paradigm of absolutism, of One Truth and One God.

The good news about postmodernism is that it recognizes plurality which is undeniable.  Even the Church acknowledges the plurality of religions in terms of existence, although it may not accept their validity in terms of doctrinal substance.  The bad news is that it has led, or is leading, us into moral relativism. Or the dictatorship of relativism, as Pope Benedict XVI calls it.

Since 1990, we have been in the era of post-postmodernism.  These two eras have witnessed explosive technological growth.  Man has become enthralled and distracted by the latest gadgetry, while his moral universe seemingly collapses.  These are the best and the worst of times.  But perhaps the times are best described by the poet Yeats in "The Second Coming".  In the first stanza, he says, "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world."  And he concludes with, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity".  How true!  Especially if you watch the unseemly dummy spits in the Senate.

So as the "centre cannot hold", integration is sorely needed.  In the face of plurality, religion may no longer provide this integration because no religion is truly catholic.  That is catholic with a small "c" meaning universal.  This is not to say that religion should be abandoned.  Religion is necessary to administer to the spiritual needs of those in need, to usher us into the mysteries of birth and death, to comfort the poor and the dispossessed, and perhaps to entertain us with its colorful festivals. More seriously, religions can continue to be truly relevant if they can come together and contribute to the development and implantation of a universally accepted secular code of ethics, a non-digital tablet of commandments for all times, all nations and all men.    

In my essay, "The Seven Commandments of Secular Ethics", which was published in this blog, I argued that an agreement on absolute secular rules of conduct can be, and must be, arrived at.  I presented seven commandments that in my view transcend postmodernism.  I said, "As envisioned, the commandments are absolute but must be applied relatively".

The question before us then is: Can the Hierarchy of Loyalties be used to arrive at an objective standard that may be applied to resolve ethical conflicts?

To answer this question, I consider two approaches, a formal one and an informal one.  The formal approach sees the Hierarchy as structure, as a strata of rules.  The informal approach sees the Hierarchy as process, as the interaction of constructs between and among themselves.

Before we examine these approaches, let me state three caveats: 

• With respect to the Hierarchy and this essay, the viewpoint is mainly from the Self as it interacts with other constructs.

• Independent of Self, there are vast interactions between, among and within the other constructs.  These interactions are governed by existing protocols that, it must be admitted, require greater and constant refinement.

• The ideas presented here are in embryonic form.  They give an overview of a schema that hopefully will acquire refinement when finalized in the paper.  I am presenting the dots but not all of the connections.

The Formal Approach - Strata of Rules

The formal approach takes the structure of the Hierarchy and links the constructs to associated rules.  This is shown in the table below.  Surprisingly or not so surprisingly, the sequence of the attached rules is indicative of their ethical primacy.

CONSTRUCT	PRIO RITY	ASSOCIATED RULES	CODIFICATIONS OR EXAMPLES OF
God	1	Rule of Conscience	Secular Commandments
World	2	Rule of International Law	o    Universal Declaration of Human Rights o    Law of the Sea
Country	3 – 4	Rule of the Law of the Land	o    Constitution o    Body of Law
Community	3 – 4	Rule of the Tribe	o    Subsumed under Country
Church	5	Rule of Religion	o    Ten Commandments o    Shariah o    Magisterium
Family	6	Rule of Family Law	o    Care of Children o    Divorce/Separation
Self	7	Rule of Personal Maintenance	o    Personal Hygiene o    Dietary Rules

At first glance, people will object right off the bat and say, "Hey, Ed, you are confusing Law with Ethics".  My reply would be that Law is essentially codified Ethics.  Not all Law is ethical, and indeed there are some that are distinctly unethical.  Also, a second glance will reveal that not all ethical rules have been codified into law.  Some are transmitted through tradition, and some, if not the majority, are uncodified and unwritten.  In the absence of ethical rules at all levels, bear with me and let us assume that these rules are the formal constituents of ethics.

• One, the Rule of Conscience is the primary ethical rule.  This is our small inner voice and for the most part it is not codified.  The primacy of conscience is implicitly recognized in the right of citizens to overthrow a repressive government, and in the right of married couples to use methods of contraception in spite of objections from a religious quarter. Thus it transcends the Law of the Land and the Rule of Religion.

• Pope Benedict XVI may pose the objection that this, in fact, enthrones the dictatorship of relativism.  My answer would be that the Church itself bases its moral code on Natural Law.  I would argue that the Rule of Conscience is the embodiment of Natural Law.  It is not codified, yet people instinctively recognize its primacy.

• But what if a man's conscience misinterprets Natural Law?  This is the heart of the matter, and this is where the informal approach to the Hierarchy steps in as I will explain later.

• The Rule of Conscience is based on the premise that the most important construct in the Hierarchy is the least of the constructs, the Self, the individual human being.  I say "least" because the systems and institutions built around the other constructs - such as governments and religions - tend to forget their origins and the reason for their being. They shift their loyalty away from man and toward the isms and dogmas that are supposed to serve him. They become entrapped in loyalty to themselves, entangled in the power passed on or even surrendered to them by their constituencies.

• The reason for their being is primarily the development, the flowering of the Self.  Without the Self, there is no other.  Without the consciousness of the Self, there can be no apprehension of other constructs.  The raison d'etre for the State is to serve its citizens. The raison d'etre for the church is, not to serve God (Shock! Horror! Damnation!), but to serve its flock - in order that they may live life in conscious celebration of all that is divine and perhaps the not so divine.  To paraphrase Lincoln, all hierarchical constructs are ultimately of the Self, for the Self, and by the Self.

• "Hey, Ed!" you interject, "Will not this centricity of the ego turn the Self into a monster?"  Not at all.  Because the individual Self must always be constrained by the path of ethics which is a "consideration of others".

• Two, the Rule of International Law. Most people do not see the relevance of International Law in their lives.  True, International Law is primarily concerned with the interaction between and among Countries.  But in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) we find the codification of human rights and freedoms which forms the heart of the ethical norms the State must observe with respect to its citizens.

• The Rule of International Law is not entirely codified and is not yet recognized by all nation-states. The dream of a World Government, as first embodied in the League of Nations and then in the United Nations, is far from reality and far from realization.  It will take centuries before we reach that dream.  Nation-states continue to misbehave with respect to their citizens and with respect to each other, and the current mechanisms of controls are weak.

• Three, the country's Law of the Land which is codified in the Constitution and the body of statutory law and common law.  Currently the Law of the Land may be secular or it may be religious.  In a theocracy, the Law of Religion coincides with the Law of the Land.  In a secular state, under the doctrine of the separation of Church and State, the Law of the Land prevails over religious doctrine.  Rightfully, there are certain religious commandments embedded in the Law of the Land, but wrongfully there are also remnants of religious influences in it, such as Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code and that phrase "unborn from conception" in our Constitution.

• The Hierarchy assumes the superiority of a secular state over a sectarian one, and a democracy over a totalitarian one.  The reasons are obvious.  A secular state recognizes plurality while a sectarian state does not.  A democratic state recognizes the sovereignty of the Selves within it while a totalitarian one does not. A secular state may be democratic but a theocracy can never be democratic.

• Four, the Law of the Tribe has been subsumed under the Law of the Land.  To a large extent, tribal identities - whether based on blood, dialect or religion - have been absorbed into national identities.   However, tribal identities continue to play a large role in national life, for example, the Muslims and the indigenous tribes in the Philippines.  The Law of the Tribe is largely uncodified but remains extant in traditions that are passed down through generations.

• Five, the Rule of Religion.  Different religions have different rules and observances.  In the Abrahamic religions, the religious law is centrally embodied in the Ten Commandments, although versions differ.  But in all religions, there are canons, mostly restrictions that range from the definition of and the penalties for sin to diet, body hygiene and articles of clothing.

• The phrase the "pathology of religion" has been overused, and there are different definitions of it, but I suggest it may consist in the twin claim that the Rule of Religion is the Rule of Conscience and that it should be the Law of the Land.

• Six, the Rule of Family Law is a subset of the Law of the Land.  In the Philippines, we have anomalies of loyalty (a) wherein elected politicians are allowed to show greater loyalty to the construct of Family over the construct of Country, and (b) wherein the construct of Country does not provide for the breakdown of trust between husband and wife within the construct of Family because of opposition by the construct of Church.

• Seven and finally, the Rule of Personal Maintenance.  Important as they may be, we will not discuss the combing of hair, the brushing of teeth and the cutting of toenails.

Finally, on a side note, there are many other rules and codes of conduct.  Companies, professions and social clubs all have their own codes, and I am aware and greatly amused by the Bro Code.  I wish it had been codified in my youth.

In Part 3, we will take look at the informal approach.