Amorality, anarchy and societal suicide

The following article was submitted by the Public Theology Forum, an ecumenical group of ministers and theologians.

At the present time, there are many literate persons in Jamaica who do not read any newspaper or watch local news on television because they are afraid of what is likely to be in any news item, especially if there are children or adolescents who are likely to be present and reading or watching what is being reported.

What is interesting, though, is that a refusal to hear or see what is happening does not cause what is feared or abhorred to 'unhappen', even for those who are too scared to face it with eyes and ears wide open.

What must be most worrying for many is that in our country, like many other countries around the world, there seems to be no one to turn to with the hope of hearing that there is the possibility of having anything done by any authority to change, or even reduce, the severity of what is likely to happen or be made known in the next newscast or the next issue of the newspaper we read.

At present, no category of persons in any place of authority seems to be exempt from blame. To those who are familiar with the history of Israel, Jamaica's present situation bears close resemblance to the situation reported in the book of Judges just after the demise of Joshua. All symbols of authority seemed to have been discredited, leading the writer of Judges to observe that "everyone was free to do what seemed right in his own eyes".

What follows that observation in the story of that period of Israel's history makes it seem as though the situation being described lamentably were Afghanistan, Somalia or Jamaica. It was chaotic, yet God allowed it to run its course just to teach the people a lesson on the consequences of flouting what is known to be morally right and, therefore, essential for the preservation of personal and national integrity.

ethical subjectivity

In Jamaica, we are now seeing the consequences of what exponents of morality and ethics refer to as ethical subjectivity. This is an approach to morality based on the view that no one is under obligation to be guided by any principle or understanding of rightness or wrongness that is inherited or handed down from previous periods of history. Some object most strongly to anything moral or ethical, especially if it is linked to any religious tradition or notion of God.

Wherever this view of morality prevails, it is inevitable that a society gets to a point of its development where nothing is predictable - everything has to be taken with 'a pinch of salt'; all authority is eroded or discredited, nobody's word can be taken seriously, or anything and everyone who speaks is deemed to be doing so in his or her own interest.

Wherever amorality or normlessness prevails, it becomes difficult even to get young children to accept the authority of those who teach them. It is equally difficult even to get adult citizens to take the word of officers of the law at any level of the system of justice. As for legislators, especially in situations like ours, where, traditionally, there is so little respect for the man in the street, only fanatical party loyalists give credence to utterances or even official announcements by government ministers. Of course, it is no different with officials of the churches in some places.

Perhaps the worst consequence of amorality is the feeling that there is no one in charge anywhere with the power to enforce sanctions. This leaves many with the haunting fear that there exists a situation of leaderlesness, which is frightening, to say the least.

The followers of Jesus would have experienced this crisis when the man in whom their hopes rested was removed from the scene in the manner described in the records of the gospels. Again and again, this happens in the history of nations and factions within nations.

In our country at the present time, there exists this sense of leaderlessness and the concomitant feeling of being accountable to no one except oneself or those in whom one chooses to repose ultimate authority over one's life or aspects of one's life. The apparent ease with which persons carry out acts of murder or vandalism in defiance or contempt of constituted authority is testimony to the prevalence of the feeling among many that one need not feel constrained to observe any laws, moral or ethical.

The effect of the failure, or refusal, of persons invested with authority in this nation to uphold universal moral principles, like speaking truthfully and honouring promises made in good faith, is the increasing disenchantment of many citizens of the nation with most areas of national life, especially with the legislative activities which affect their lives more significantly than those of other spheres of national life.

Contrary to what many think, morality is not the concern of religious fanatics or those who feel victimised by those who are more powerful. Rather, it is an inevitable feature of life together in the real world and we ignore it to the peril of powerful, powerless, rich and poor.

Members of the Public Theology Forum are Ernle Gordon, Roderick Hewitt, Stotrell Lowe, Marjorie Lewis, Richmond Nelson, Garnet Roper, Anna Perkins, Ashley Smith, Burchell Taylor, Karl Johnson, Wayneford McFarlane and Byron Chambers, coordinator.