https://geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/compass-en.php
"Regardless of their intended purpose or the complexity of their construction, most mechanical compasses operate on the same basic principle. A small, elongated, permanently magnetized needle is placed on a pivot so that it may rotate freely in the horizontal plane. The Earth's magnetic field exerts a force on the compass needle, causing it to rotate until it comes to rest in the same horizontal direction as the magnetic field. Over much of the Earth, this direction is roughly true north, which accounts for the compass's importance for navigation."
A compass is an interesting device. It is very simple in construction, yet it's effects go far beyond its simplicity. In short, a compass works because there are objective conditions in the created world that cause the magnetized needle to behave (roughly) the same way at (almost) all times and (almost) all circumstances. The objective reality is that a magnetic compass as accurate enough, in enough times and places, so as to reliably allow people to find their way to a destination. Therefore that reliability of pointing in the same direction (virtually) always allows people to define the other directions relative to that fixed direction (magnetic north). Now because there are a relatively few areas where that earths magnetic field shifts enough to throw off a compass, there are also tools that will allow people to continue to use magnetic compasses to accurately navigate, despite those fluctuations.
So, if one of (if not the single) distinctive features of a compass is that it reliably and consistently points in the same direction and reliably and consistently allows people to use that fixed/objective information to determine direction of travel, wouldn't that feature apply to a "moral compass" as well? Would not a "moral compass" provide moral direction that was the same regardless of who and where they used it? Would not a "moral compass" provide a fixed, objective, indication of the morality of an action? Is a "moral compass" like a magnetic compass in that not everyone has access to one, and that one must actively seek out a "moral compass"? If a "moral compass" is something that is innate to all humans, then how does one account for the fact that so many cultures (countries/religions/clans/tribes/etc) hold such different moral values?
As we are seeing in the UK right now, the Pakistani culture clearly believes that it is moral to rape non Muslim girls. Which raises the question, where does the "moral compass" of these people point. Does their moral compass point the same way as most of the rest of humanity which says that raping girls is bad behavior, or does their "moral compass" point in a direction that tells them that their behavior is appropriate?
If there is a "moral compass", and the metaphor has any utility at all, would not everyone's "moral compass" have to reliably and consistently point in the same direction? Of what utility is a compass (moral or otherwise) that doesn't point toward the same north as every other compass. (In acknowledgement of the weakness of the metaphor, there are circumstances where a magnetic compass won't point to the north. Yet, in those circumstances all compasses will still point in the same direction. Not in contradictory directions.) So when someone suggests that one's "moral compass" is broken because it doesn't point the way they believe it should, it only seems natural to wonder about the nature of the "moral compass" and how it relates to a magnetic compass.
2 comments:
While I believe the metaphor of the compass is about as loose as a metaphor can be, it still represents an understanding of morality. But it requires that same understanding of what constitutes morality in order for the metaphor to work at all.
Some simply do not have the same understanding of morality as well as the source of it. The latter is important because the "needle" would point toward that source in a working "moral" compass.
But of course the use of this expression from a certain someone is just another attempt to claim moral superiority when arguments determine behaviors fails to win over that someone's opponents. That is, if you don't roll his way, there's something wrong with YOUR moral compass. His is perfect.
Art,
That's the point. Much like a magnetic compass which does not point north is useless, a "moral compass" which does not have a fixed version of "moral north", which is the same across time and culture, is useless. The "moral compass" metaphor implies some innate "magnetic north" that lies within all of us is is the same for all of us. Yet reality tells us that it is not so.
I didn't go down the "source" track, but you are correct that the source would be important. Yet, for my purpose here, the source isn't relevant beyond concluding that the source is universal and consistent.
I'll admit that his attempt to assert some warped sort of moral superiority was what got me thinking about the term "moral compass", and how it relates to a magnetic compass. His problem remains that in the absence of a fixed, objective, universal, "magnetic north" a "moral compass" is useless.
Post a Comment