What if Every Interaction began with “May I”

Obviously, this is not the world we live in. The question requires that we use our imagination to visualize what that might look like, how it might feel? Imagine living in a world where permission was required for every encounter, for every exchange. I have lived in that world for the past 48 years. A close friend recently asked me, “what do you believe is wrong with the world?”. This a reasonable question given the news that fills our airwaves and occupies our printed papers. I thought for a moment and responded, “the lack of a universal moral standard”, then elaborated “the absence of moral accountability”.

Could the answer be that simple? Almost Pollyanna for some. I’ve shared this crazy idea with a few friends, and ultimately their common reaction is to dismiss the question as being inconsistent with man’s instinctive nature. After all, we’re animals they say. We rule by power. The alpha male (female) is destined to rule, to take control by sheer will and overwhelming power to defeat anyone who stands against him or her. This certainly describes the world we live in.

Our history is filled with conflict; and the violence, destruction, and death that is the inevitable consequence. A testament to our failure to resolve conflict in a peaceful manner. All in the quest for power, control, and wealth. Yes, we are animals. Humans share a great deal with the rest of the life forms on Earth with perhaps one notable exception. Somewhere along our evolutionary journey, humans developed a conscience. The ability to choose between this or that. To weigh the relative merit of their actions in terms of good and bad, right and wrong. In other words, we have the ability to pick and choose the actions that we perceive will bring us the greatest happiness and joy.

However, the ability to choose also carries an implied responsibility; an implicit accountability backed by certain consequences for immoral behavior. I submit for your consideration that the human desire for happiness is universal and absolute. It is independent of time, age, or circumstance. I can’t think of a single action or choice that is made by anyone in the pursuit of a bad outcome. The perceived end goal must produce a benefit or reward, or another choice is invariably made.

But as we all know, there are no guarantees. We are motivated in this pursuit driven only by the perception of a benefit. It is only in our subjective perception that we choose to do one thing over an alternative action with no absolute assurance that our action will produce the anticipated result. Making the wrong decision is also a choice. How do we choose? How do we know we’re right? Can the rightness of any action be measured? What should the ultimate responsibility to our fellow man be? These are questions that must be asked and answered if societies are to interact peacefully.

I believe this is the role of morality. Providing the rules of the road to help guide us along life’s highway, and thereby avoid the dangers we may encounter. It encourages us to “come this way” as the preferred route to reach our ultimate destination. Nautical charts identify narrow channels with graphic lines. They indicate the way for safe passage from here to there. Sailors can ignore these symbolic lines, but then shouldn’t be surprised to find themselves stuck on some shoal. I believe there are moral lines and boundaries that keep us all out of harm’s way, but only if we choose to stay within those lines of moral behavior.

The problem is that while we all have a concept of morality, coming to a universal understanding of what it means and how to measure it is the challenge. I fear humans interact at best with relative concepts of morality. Among different cultures, different religions, and different age groups there is a diverse opinion about what morality is. Although a general agreement can be reached, it’s in the fringe areas that we get into disagreement leading to the conflict that can invariably occur. Embracing moral conduct is easy until it gets in the way of what we want. And therein lies both the rub and the challenge to find a permanent solution to a peaceful existence.

I believe morality is the oil, the essential lubricant, that allows people to interact without creating the type of friction that ultimately results in failure. Failure is characterized by the needless conflict, destruction, and death we see with growing frequency. Societies have established concepts of morality as the necessary foundation from which to build the rules of behavior that guide our actions in the interest of social order. The Ten Commandments in Christian faiths are an example of man’s effort to establish behavioral guidelines. I suspect similar rules of conduct can be found in other religions as well. They are often looked upon to determine the path of what is considered the rightful interaction between individuals based on mutual respect.

The Ten Commandments have endured because they are founded in truth. They speak to the idea of self-respect, and respect for others. Doing the right thing even when no one’s looking but knowing, in religion, that God is always looking. With a watchful eye scrutinizing our actions and taking notes for His ultimate reckoning of our lives. Determining those who have earned the rewards of eternal life in the grace of God, and those who are eternally damned to burn in a fiery hell. And for those believers, this can be a sufficient deterrent to encourage good behavior. And this could work, might actually be enough but for the fact that Christian faith embraces a concept called forgiveness. So sacred a gift to man that God’s only son gave his life in exchange for our sins. The power of redemption that makes everything okay, no matter what. Here then is where religion fails. The absence of certain consequences thereby removing the fear of accountability is the problem both within and outside religious beliefs.

For me, the deterrent is not the idea that God is always watching, as I do not believe that God is external to our being. Rather the power of God, if you so choose, is internal. He is the force and light that illuminates our lives. Our natural inheritance as humans. I believe we’re born with a true moral compass that always points to the truth and to what is right. We know when any action towards another is good, is right. We feel it deep within our heart of hearts. Bathed in a sense of well-being. A good deed preserves our natural balance and delivers joy as the reward. Like the pieces of a puzzle coming together to reveal a beautiful picture. Naturally, without the need for force. Conversely, when we do anything wrong, we know it. That wrenching feeling in our gut that tells us we’re off track, outside our moral channel at the risk of leaving hurtful feelings or worse in the wake of our exchange.

Life can be cruel. What life brings is not always fair, not always joyful. Adversity can make us feel foolish, victimized, or even abused. Human interaction requires a bilateral exchange characterized by the trust that each party extends to the other. Trust that each party will do what is agreed upon in a respectful manner. An implied acknowledgment of what is yours and what is not in a manner that respects those boundaries. That is the goal, but unfortunately not always the outcome. When an expectation is unfulfilled, it tends to affect our internal compass in a manner that deflects us from the truth. A violation that leaves an indelible scar, acting like an unnatural magnetic force that obscures the way to true morality. Although doing the right thing brings joy and satisfaction, it is not always easy. Sometimes doing the right thing gets in the way of an easier path. In our quest for happiness, temptation can make it difficult to make the right choice. Morality carries a burden. Knowing that you can always be counted on to do the right thing can also make you vulnerable putting you at risk to those who would take advantage of your honorable nature.

Relative morality exists now. It is the best we have serving as a guide but fails as an effective deterrent to eliminate the violence that we see every day. It relies on the presumed good nature of man. However, not all men are good, especially on a consistent basis. The pursuit of happiness can create the temptation to bend the rules in favor of the quest for our desires. Can the idea of absolute morality exist as an alternative? A one-size-fits-all approach to conducting ourselves in a way that avoids or at least mitigates the consequences of wrongful acts. Can the concept of absolute morality be incorporated into a social order to create an effective deterrent to the hurtful interaction that can occur between individuals? There are those who feel comfortable conducting themselves in the shadows of morality. The gray areas of relative morality where, in the shadows, the fine lines of rightful behavior become obscured thereby allowing conflict to thrive.

We have created a world of winners and losers. I believe too much emphasis has been placed on the reward of victory. The desire to win is driven by even the greater fear of losing. To win is to excel, often at any price or by any means. Yet another demonstration of power and strength. Absolute morality. Is such a concept even possible? And if it did exist, would we discover a clear path to social interaction without conflict? Would it make the world a better place or simply add to the chaos that already exists?

I believe that a standard for absolute morality can exist, and that, more importantly, it is essential to our survival as a species on earth being the only alternative to the manner in which we now resolve our disagreements. While we have made great technological advancements to improve our existence, we have failed to make any corresponding changes to help us simply get along. In that respect, we are still living like our primitive ancestors in a cave. Where the key to survival remains in the notion that might makes right. Giving justification to the belief that in a disagreement, force becomes the ultimate arbitrator. A world where strength and power are measured by strength in numbers, bows and arrows, rifles, tanks, planes, and bombs, and now nuclear rockets.

Visibly, as technology has improved the quality of our lives, so has it increased the destructive capability fueled by our inability to resolve our disagreements without the use of force. A hammer is a useful tool when used properly as intended. However, when it can be used as meant for useful purposes, and simultaneously be used as a weapon therein lies the problem. The time has come when force can no longer be used as an effective deterrent nor as the means to an end. Yet the messages are still loud and clear. Fighting has become the accepted strategy to achieve our noblest of goals. The war against crime and drugs, the fight for cures for our most dreaded diseases, and the fight for social justice and equality. The willingness to kill or be killed in the name of freedom is too common a cry. History has demonstrated consistently that fighting has not worked to achieve the intended goal. I submit it will never work especially in our advancing technological world.

As unlikely as it may seem, a concept of absolute morality is achievable and can serve as the foundation for a better world. What I propose does not come from religion although it would be consistent with their principles of good and kindness. If the use of force is abandoned, then obviously we cannot fight for a moral world. Nor is the solution found in the creation of a moral political party seeking political power to superimpose the right behavior by majority consent. Nor is morality an organized movement soliciting the support of followers. Rather, it is a way of looking at what we do, and identifying the boundaries that allow safe interaction. Providing an alternative way to facilitate interactions between individuals, organizations, and even countries.

I think it’s fair to say we have all experienced the loss of something we value. A physical possession, a feeling of well-being, an idea; life itself. The loss, of anything no matter how insignificant, never feels good. One can feel cheated, victimized, and betrayed when the loss occurs without our consent. A personal violation that’s never forgotten. A concession that we have lost control of. The fear of loss is what compels us to seek control over our own actions, and the actions of those who would threaten us. The need for a simple lock is a testament to the reality that we live in a violent world. The loss can be subtle. After all, isn’t a broken promise the theft of an expectation that leaves you questioning your own judgment and feelings of anger?

I submit the loss of your self-respect can have a more enduring effect than the loss of a physical possession. Especially when the loss has come at the hands of another against your will. The feelings that a loss can bring will run the full spectrum of emotions including anger, resentment, and the need for retribution against the offenders. For instance, no one likes a bully. The too-common grade school kid that everyone feared at recess. For him, nothing was beyond his grasp. You know him as the kid who cut in line when the teacher wasn’t looking. Calling him out was never an option unless you were willing to suffer the consequences after school. An oddball who compensated for his unpopularity by reeking fear by his sheer size and strength. He may have been the kid that everyone feared, but he was also the kid that everyone hated.

The schoolyard bully was easy to identify. You knew who he was and thereby took evasive action to avoid him. Circled yourself with friends and others knowing that there is strength in numbers. But he invariably he responded by calling on others to join him. The power of a gang is characterized by unrestrained intimidation. Any loss can be devastating, but the non-consensual loss at the hands of others leaves a sense that we have truly lost control. Potentially leaving a permanent scar as an enduring reminder.

The schoolyard may have been our first encounter with a bully, but regretfully not the last for most. The enduring characteristic is the crippling use of intimidation when the overwhelming advantage of strength and power is used to control and abuse. We carry that reality, that fear in our minds and spirit. We seek protection to safeguard what is ours. Our heroes are those who champion on our behalf to defeat the bully. However, when empowering the hero, take care to ensure that the hero does not become the next bully. I hope you agree that bullies are bad. The thug on the street, and even when the bully is a committee compelling your consent by majority rule. You may surrender to the decision of a ruling authority but if the ruling is against you or what you believe, it still hurts. I submit bullying is wrong, and I suggest for your consideration; that bullying is also immoral and therefore absolutely wrong.

May we call the taking of anything without the rightful owner’s consent, stealing or theft? Is that fair to say? If so, then what can we say of stealing? With respect to theft, we can ask; is stealing always right, is it always wrong, or is it sometimes right and sometimes wrong which implies that theft can be justified. I submit that for me, theft is always wrong and there are no exceptions. Justifiable theft and absolute morality cannot coexist. I believe there is no justification for theft, war, or violence of any type that results in destruction and death. In a moral society, there is never a justification for the use of force.

If every human interaction required permission and consent there would be no conflict, only disappointment in the worst case. Where extreme frustration would be the ultimate damage. The use of force would have no place in consensual exchanges. Control is a good thing only when it is self-control, or consensual. The ability to determine the outcome of what is only yours either by acquisition or by permission. But what is truly ours? Our life certainly. Our feelings, thoughts, and ideas for one another. And finally, the physical or material possessions that we acquire as extensions of our desires. Our lives and feelings are given as a birthright. It is in the acquisition of our possessions that humans often run into trouble.

Not that I believe we should all live in caves and want for nothing, nor do I believe the quest for material things is inherently wrong. But how we acquire the things we need and want makes all the difference. A work associate said years ago, “What is mine is anything that is not nailed down, and anything I can pry loose with a crowbar isn’t nailed.” It doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to see the implications and ultimate consequences of this approach to gathering the things that would make life better. Once again, we are motivated by the perception of gain which will result in a higher state of happiness.

How often have we thought about a goal or possession only to discover that it did not bring the level of joy or satisfaction that we anticipated? I think the expression “be careful what you wish for” is a testament to the reality of unintended consequences. Our human nature rests in the quest for subjective happiness. That the quest for possessions invariably leaves you yet unfulfilled leaving you wanting more. Do not make the mistake of assuming that the quest for physical possessions is metaphorically different than the quest for peace of mind, tranquility, and knowledge. The enduring quest for more is in the undeniable nature of humans. Any enduring society will need to embrace this human characteristic in a manner that provides for orderly interaction among individuals.

Morality is about respect and boundaries. An acknowledgment of what is ours, and what is not. There is a predictable and adverse consequence when those undeniable boundaries are disregarded. We can acquire by taking by the use of force leaving anger and resentment in its wake. Or we can acquire by giving of ourselves in body and mind thereby earning the things we want and need in the manner of moral exchanges. At the base level, food and shelter to keep us alive and warm is required. The feelings that give us purpose, the sense of well-being that provides contentment and peace of mind are secondary yet define our humanity in meaningful ways.

There are two paths on the horizon. One leads to peaceful fulfillment, the other to death and destruction; the choice is ours. We live in the legacy that force has provided. Change for the better compels us to make a better choice, one that favors morality in a consensual world. One that seeks permission for the things we need and want.

Rudolph Ortega is the creative director, and a registered architect who freely shares his forty years of design and construction experience in order to achieve the best possible solution... He now lives in the historic city of Merida in Mexico.