It seems to some that newer mental and emotional illnesses are modern inventions – conditions that didn’t exist before psychiatrists named them. Bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, ADHD, social anxiety disorder, etc. Many people, opposed to modern psychiatry (many for good reason: it is, after all, as much an art as it is a science) consider these conditions and their treatments fictions – based on the presumption that human experience has not changed all that much in the last hundred or so years.

I posit, however, that human experience has changed substantially in the last fifty years, and because of that we have new illnesses, new failures to cope with complex modernity, that have arisen in the face of changed human experience. The modern era offers a multiplicity of choice so numerous as to exceed exponentially the imaginations of our forebearers. A night’s television, for example, offers some fifty or so advertisements for products fulfilling wants and needs, most of which are wants and needs created by conditions in our industrial age. (Panty hose, fabric softener, and Windows Vista are not needs our ancestors would’ve asked to have filled.) Moreover, that same night of television proposes to viewers different lifestyles that condition the viewers’ imaginations, and so condition the viewers’ abilities to imagine alternatives for their lives. This defines their desires.

I wonder if we have more desires than our ancestors, and more complicated desires at that? I wonder if that multiplicity of longing, defined by so many choices and suggestions, hightens our sense of emptiness and failure should those desires go too long unfulfilled? If the Buddhists are right, samsara – human desires – is what creates human suffering, and we live in an era when samsara is king almost by default.

Can’t modernly-named mental and emotional illnesses be genuine, then, new conditions that arise in the face of newly defined human experience? Can’t the abundance of choice clog our abilities to self-actualize, and wouldn’t it stand to reason that some individuals are less able to cope with so much multiplicity than others? Maybe those individuals are susceptible to malfunctions in the face of so much choice? Is it possible that’s what’s at the heart of these new illnesses?

In this era of “American moral concern,” I’ve noticed that the media – and my peers in conversation – have been too careless with their use of the terms “morals” and “ethics.” They’re often tossed out as though they are synonymous with one another. They are not. True, both describe modes of decisioning that govern individual behavior – systems of thought which guide us in our societal affairs – but ethics and morals are not the same thing.

The difference between morality and ethicality can be summed up thusly:

A moral person believes he does what’s right/correct. A moral person tries not to do what’s wrong.

An ethical person believes he does what’s good. An ethical person strives to do no harm.

We need to remember that correct is not always good, and vice versa. Sometimes, a thing that society regards as correct (female castration still common in some cultures, for example) is not always what’s good because its cruel, mutilative, and compulsory. Similarly argued: it may be good for a hungry, homeless mother to steal food because she can keep herself and her children alive for another day, but that theft is not correct behavior morally or ethically.

Morality is not, nor can it ever be, ethicality – and the converse is almost as true. Ethicality does have broad guidelines it adopts to direct its critical evaluative processes, but these are not hard and fast, nor are they black and white, and they are installed with the idea in mind that they will be tested, disproved, and replaced with more suitable rules as society’s self understanding changes. Ethicality has no hard and fast code written down anywhere. Morality does have a code for conditional behavior that is specific and is generally recorded. Morality is much more slowly revised and usually requires a top-down overhaul to a legal and/or religious code. And even if the moral code is rewritten, the code’s caretakers must persuade the general populace that the changes are worth adopting – a very difficult task.

~

Ethicality demands that we face each behavior circumstantially and evaluate how best to do no harm and do what’s good for all involved.

Morality demands we face the same circumstance and evaluate it according to pre-established, relatively inflexible rules and decide how to rightly act in response to it.

~

Ethics requires time for consideration and the inclusion of grays (in addition to blacks and whites) into that consideration.

Morality requires comparitively little time for consideration – after all, there’s a check list to be employed – and only asks us to look at blacks and whites.

~

Ethicality requires the individual to take responsibility not only for his actions but for his decisioning leading up to those actions. An ethical person owns his choices as well as his actions. An ethical person’s character is on the line.

Morality only asks the individual to take responsibility for his actions, so long as they are morally sanctioned. Even if the moral action is harmful to others, the actioning individual is absolved of guilt for his choice if he acts as the moral code directs. A moral person is responsible only for actions which do not adhere to the moral code. A moral person can argue that he was only doing what he was told/taught was right.

~

Ethical people are accountable for their actions.

Moral people hide behind their code and claim it, not they, is responsible for their actions.

~

Ethics are for smart people who are willing to take time to consider others’ needs as well as their own.

Morals are for the stupid, lazy, or/and selfish.

~

The last two are probably very offensive to most readers. Consider, however, the complications involved in deploying an ethical code. Firstly, ethics demands that we consider others’ needs as well as our own in our decisioning. Someone who is fundamentally concerned only with himself – selfish – would find ethical thought and action immediately unappealing. Ethical consideration for more complex circumstances requires critical thought to deploy – it is not an easy system of evaluation and each circumstance requires thoughtful consideration. Someone who is lazy will probably not find themselves interested in thinking in too involved a fashion to arrive at behavioral decisions. And someone who is stupid is, quite frankly, incapable of acheiving the level of critical thought necessary to acheive complicated ethical decisions. That said, the stupid and lazy do have an ethical option they could chose to employ. It’s simple and commonly known: the Golden Rule. Do onto others as you would have them do onto you. It’s a far more noble and responsible mode of being than the alternative: thoughtlessly behaving as we are told, regardless of the consequences.

~

In my mind, it is a moral society that has led us to the verge of economic collapse, a rotting environment, and criminal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In my mind, moral people have thoughtlessly supported an American Government that is heedlessly criminal because that government claimed allegiance to the morals of the supposed marjority.

In my mind, reasonable peoples the world over much reject the thoughtlessness of morality and employ thoughtful, careful ethicality – and encourage others, at the very least, to adopt the Golden Rule as the guiding compass for their behaviors.

Of course, no such thing can or will happen. But the moral/ethical distinction is something everyone should understand and give consideration to. If only for a moment.

There’s been all of this confused speculation about why we’re in this war and why the President continues down this mad path of maintaining and even increasing troop levels in Iraq. Our fellow citizens keep coming back to the obvious: that there is no winnable war, and that public opinion is that we should pull our troops out of a region rife with civil war and terror breeding grounds.

I have a simple suggestion for why we continue to stay in Iraq and even boost our troop levels. The President and his cadre of officials don’t believe we’re in a winnable war. They’re just holding ground, waiting for the next “winnable war.” They’re waiting for Iran.

Words have an incredible power to facilitate our appreciation and understanding of art, and of what that appreciation/understanding tells us of ourselves, but they can also overwhelm our dialog with art. We must strive not to allow critical language to expand the distance between viewer and art. It best serves to augment our understanding of a piece and of what that piece shows us of ourselves. If it goes beyond that, it does us both – viewer and art – a great disservice.

When I use the term “art” in these writings, I mean not specifically painting or drawing as I practice them, but the full spectrum of human manual purposed creation – painting and drawing, yes, but music, sculpture, dance, theatre, cuisine, and literature and poetry, and the successful syntheses of combinations of these forms, too.