Morality who needs it?

 

There is an economics term called "the commons". This is distinguished from "private property". The capitalist theory holds that socialism doesn't work because nobody really cares about the commons; but if somebody owns it, then they'll care about it.

Perhaps one can expand upon that beyond the economic sphere. Let's take religion. Religion concerns itself with morality, does it not? But nobody cares about morality except for the people who own it. That would be the clergy. Got that?

There will be objections to that, of course. Christianity teaches that the "good sheperd" takes care of the sheep. The sheep meaning the followers of the religion. Therefore, according to the theory propounded above, the clergy only cares about the sheep because they "own" the sheep. Once again, there are those who would object, but isn't that really the case? Who would care about the sheep but its owners?

The good shepherd will guard his flock with his own life. The same is true of private property, is it not?

Once again, there will be objections. There's always objections. This is a working theory. Maybe it isn't the best possible one, but it one that provide a working model for an idea.

Morality is the commons like land is, or any other good thing. Morality is a good thing because it gives predictability to human relations. For example, the common good isn't advanced if there's no enforcement for murder, theft, and so forth. If these behaviors aren't punished, there will be anarchy. Of course there are those for which anarchy would be a good thing, and those people benefit from the anarchy. Consequently, it can be said that they own it.

Furthermore, if anything is a good thing that most people would want, it would be best to have someone in charge of it.

Most people would say that law and order is a good thing. Only the criminal class likes anarchy.

Who would benefit from law and order? Why the government, of course. An anarchy doesn't go with law and order. Therefore law enforcement will "own" orderliness in a society.

Consequently, if you want good things for everybody (in the commons), then you'd better put somebody in charge of it.

If nobody is in charge of it, then the law of the jungle will apply. Nature really does abhor a vacuum. If there's no morality, then the amoral will benefit. If there's no law and order, the criminal class will dominate. In a so-called democracy, if the people want law and order, then that is what they'll get. If people want to be amoral monsters, then that's is what they'll get too.

How do you determine what the people want? Why an election, of course. I think the conclusion follows. But of course there will be objections to that. There always is.