Throughout the evolution of society social conduct has been a matter of debate;

instinct and intellect being at constant loggerheads with one another. Despite the
period of time that the subject of morality and just conduct has been under discussion
it is a matter that could be seen to still be in its youth - in a world rapidly becoming a
global village the need for tolerance and subjective judgment has come to the fore
front of the collective consciousness, but is it any more prevalent today than in times
past?

The philosophical conundrum of how humanity should interact with itself is as (if not
more) perplexing today as in the days of the early philosophers, it becomes
increasingly difficult to reach a conclusion with any finality on the subject with the
ever more noticeable interpollination and dilution of ethnic, religious and philosophical
ideology.

From my standpoint as a citizen of a small western nation with a history of invasion

and conquest, along with it being at the forefront of past religious intolerance and
upheaval, I see this subject viewed by most of those around me as the territory of
dusty books, politicians, lawyers and the often overlooked administers of religion. Is
this what people mean when they refer to the moral decay of the west? With a
populous that largely puts little faith in its leaders and law-writers with their own
dubious motives and with numbers of church goers dwindling in some perverted
inverse correlation to population expansion is anyone left holding ethical didactic
power over a populous who do not respect it?, If not... are we any worse off for the
loss?

Natural law is the ancient idea of nature as an intelligence that to all peoples has
given certain invariable moral truths, which become the foundations of law within their
societies. However it is cloudy weather this is due to some natural, instinctive
understanding of just action or weather it could be traced back simply to the need for
order and social synchronicity within a community for it to survive against the internal
desires of its members to (for example) steal from one another or kill amongst
themselves.

“I think that some of the unnecessary pleasures and desires are

lawless and violent. Perhaps we are all born with them, but they are
disciplined by law and by combination of reason and the better desires
till in some they are got rid of altogether, or rendered few and feeble,
though in
some they retain their numbers and strength” (Plato 1974).

It is clear to me that I have some sense of right and wrong instilled in me and I know
many others who live by a similar set of values, much conjecture over the history of
philosophical thought has been dedicated to dissecting the nature of this
phenomenon. Throughout my reading into the subject of theoretical just conduct the
issues at stake most commonly have been public order equal rights, the efficient and
fair production and distribution of goods, population control and the ever present
grasping for knowledge and understanding these are most commonly controlled and
administered through the institutions of law, religion and philosophy (three bodies
often seen to be at unspeakable loggerheads with each other) with the aim of
pacifying the populous while placating their needs. By what means these criteria are
to be met however varies vastly between generations and through a plethora of
schools of thought, It is my opinion (to my surprise) that Plato carried a similar chip on
his shoulder to Hitler – sacrificing freedoms in the name of the greater good and the
progression of society.
Plato holds that intellect and reason are the key to the progression of society,
unfortunately (as with many ethical and philosophical ideals, not least communism)
such vision is clouded throughout history by human nature; our species is all too prone
to greed, arrogance, violence and self gratification; “human beings decide just how far
God’s commandments may conveniently be observed” (More 1965), this weakness is a
central concern in much conjecture; it seems common opinion that it is the
responsibility of the individual to exercise self discipline in controlling their actions,
however it is the responsibility of those around the individual to condition them to act
according to what are considered just principles.

Utopia; a Greek term translating as ’no place’ is a word that has become synonymous
with a peaceful, uncorrupted and idyllic society, this term for the long sought but
seemingly unobtainable social state was coined by Thomas More in his work of the
same name, a piece of fictional rhetorical narrative considered by some as one of the
earliest structures for the formulation of a communist state. The concept portrayed is
of a populace raised within a social structure that is run in a radically different
socioeconomic manner from our own; money is not used as everything is distributed
equally, gold is thought only good as a children’s play thing or for the payment of
mercenaries should war arise and the country is run as a socialist democracy. This
revolutionary ideal accepted (as did Plato’s Republic) that for such a society to exist its
members would need to be raised outside of the surrounding influence of society as it
stands as its construction from those indoctrinated by life as we know it would raise
many problems.

The Republic contains many ideals that could be put to work in society, unfortunately
many of them require a totalitarian system of control and it blind sides humanism
more often than any realistic proposal could, I think something of this naivety can be
put down to a lack of recorded history and international comunication to be learnt
from. Many centuries later Thomas More wrote his account of Utopia, which is
debatably one of the founding texts for the basis of communism; a method that has
infamously been tried and proven in its true form to unfortunately fail due in no small
part to the short comings of man. Some of the simple things such as comunal eating
halls with seating plans designed to intergrate different demographics amongst one
another however do seem to make some sense, although in our system hierachy holds
great stature it’s the sort of thing that arises in office politics, like a politician being
photographed cycling to work.

Plato had considered in depth the need to control influences to which the people of his
civilisation would be allowed to be exposed to; poetry and contrary works of literature
were harmful to young minds in his eyes as they divert them from clear
understanding. Enforcement of such would restrict freedom of speech, I think that his
view on this subject was off kilter, I am more prefferable to Aristotle's statement;
"history may deal with facts, but poetry deals with truth" (Rosenstand 1994). Although
"the artists representation stands at third removed from reality" (Plato, 1974) must be
considered; poetics and narrative tales can be meaningless, however aslong as their
fictionality is understood by an audience I feel little true harm can be done (in recent
years groups and individuals have found issue with what they consider to be the
negative influences of elements of popular culture, most notably the horror movie and
rock and roll music) and the lessons best learnt are the ones learnt without intent or
instruction, though some would argue that leaving a mind to make its own conclusions
is dangerous. There is an ever growing section of humanity that takes the word of the
bible to be ficticious, if not, at least exaggerated; I do not wish to debate the historical
accuracy of religious texts, however I will say that the texts of most faiths contain
many moving tales (some undoubtably taller than truth as they contradict their
brothers) and many philosophical points that can act as the basis for a well lived life
whether you have faith in the story or not I believe the message (in most cases) holds
the same value.

Philosophy, law and religion are the relationships between man and man, man and law
and man and god, many thinkers have focused on the same basic principles from
these three angles, Plato for example focused on the reasoning of just conduct
between men, while Hegel concerned himself with the integration of the individual
within the state and Aristotle’s contemplated the agreements between man and god.
All these men and many more saw wrong in the systems of their times and strived to
amend them in the only way they knew how, conjecture.

These three perspectives share (or should share if viewed as intended) the goal of
harmonious social integration through peace and understanding. All have had their
part to play in the development of society and all have been used as cause for war.
These principles still hold sway today. They exist, in principle, in the same ways they
always have… conjecture on the subject may have altered somewhat (a result of the
evolution of thought) but all still hold their value. Anne McCaffrey has made reference
in her science fiction works to what she calls the age of religions; she implies that, as a
main instigator of contention through history and a now (I state now as in her fictional
future, however many thinkers of the present would state that it is true already)
outdated metaphysical concept; the world is better off without religious dogma.

Dogma, as it happens was the title chosen for a film that uses the context of a modern
day last scion (the end of the bloodline of Jesus, a subject broached through the
modern works Holy Blood, Holy Grail and more recently The Da Vinci Code – works
considered sacrilegious by the church), the film makes points regarding modern
marketing principals and the blind sighted, corruption that red taped religion brings to
the table. But, in my eyes most importantly a heavenly muse incarnate, at the end of
the film remarks that it is not important in what exactly you have faith, simply that
you have faith. This is a modern attempt from Hollywood (utilizing the basic principles
of the quest form) to bring the concept of spiritual harmony to the minds of a wider
audience.

Works such as the tales of King Arthur’s Knights, Harry Potter, The Fountain, inversely
the ending of genesis with Adam and Eve loosing their immortality to knowledge and
innumerable others in reference to an object that pertains eternal life, (the Holy Grail,
the fountain of youth or the philosophers stone to give it some of its names) hold two
highly didactic quests within their pages; the quest for wealth, often unobtainable and
the quest for immortality – death and possession being two issues that everyone holds
issue with. Their aim is often to tell simple, inalienable truths – 'everybody dies and all
we can do is live well' and 'we cannot own everything'. These are core objectives of
understanding in a just society as they douse fires deep with us.

Oscar Wilde stated, “The good it ended happily, the bad it ended unhappily, that is
what fiction means.” through the character of Miss Prism in The Importance of Being
Ernest. It shows something (from what I understand something before its time) of the
disillusionment that hold sway in much of modern western culture; the ’happily ever
after’ story, with the wicked getting their just desserts is a method that can be used to
distil a sense of justice in the young but more and more has become a means of no
more than entertainment and creating a sugar coated world view in the young which
has been seen to leave people jaded when misfortune falls upon them after a youth
believing in a world as seen in Disney movies. Writers such as Chuck Palahniuk
embody this disillusionment in their fictitious work (his book Fight Club, which was
reworked for the silver screen being a prime example) there is a bitterness to much of
his writing that holds humanity in contempt seeing that nice guys finish last, why be a
nice guy?

There is a single imperative that can be found in most world religions as well as (if
interpreted) in much secular conjecture (although the fear of divine intervention adds
a lot of clout to its sway to those of faith) is the golden rule; karma, the three fold rule,
or simply ’do unto others and you would have them do unto you’. This simple
principle holds that what you give you are likely to receive and as few wish ill upon
themselves it acts as a preventative causality as well as being seen to function on
many levels, it has its place in natural law as even the simplest of minds will
understand the nature of giving what is got, although that is not what it states 'an eye
for an eye and we shall all be blind' being the flip side of the coin.

"Both the agnostic and the atheist may find that religion suggests
solutions to their problems, but such solutions are accepted not
because they are from religion but because they somehow make
sense" (Rosenstand 1994).

This can be seen as something leaning towards natural law.

Plato held concerns about the ability of the poets dramatic fictions to warp the
understandings of righteousness within a populace; he believed that ‘modern’ stories
of the gods told tales where the gods acted in manners unbecoming to their stature
which would give the impression that they disregard their own laws, this in a way, is
quite the opposite of what happens in the modern celebrity obsession… taking that
film, television and popular music have replaced religion as the binding factor of the
west’s common people, we see stars playing respectable parts but as the tabloids take
pleasure in showing and the public in reading, many are not so saintly in their private
lives.

The popularity of a story has always been dependant on many things, but people’s
minds and imaginations are easiest stirred by stories of sin or wondrous act, their
didactic power might add something to their attractiveness to the teller but an
audience (other than perhaps a small child) is always looking for blood and sex. A
good example of this principle put to use in a modern medium would be the rise of the
satirical cartoon; South Park, (a Canadian show that tells surrealist tales of a group of
school friends,) on the surface it is crude and offensive humor but each story holds a
moral, whether social or political which is often said outright at the end of an episode.
Its continued popularity, along with that of others of its genre, such as The Simpson’s,
says something regarding their power to not only entertain, but reason with their
audience. The Simon Peg film Hot Fuzz is another comical satire that poignantly
points out how far detached goals can become from the means used to reach them –
“the greater good” symbolizes this obviously in the film.

Science fiction has become a source of many such gems; Star Trek can be viewed as a
realization of a Utopian society, Earth stands united (as in many works of this genre
both on screen and in written works), it has moved beyond war mongering and in its
infancy as a united state in a newly revealed galactic system of diplomatic pitfalls.
Star Wars on the other hand is set in the dying days of a republic that has stood for
1000 years. This story stands more concise - holding a much clearer definition of right
and wrong. Star Wars is a perfect example of how classical modes of story telling can
be united within a recently derived context; The Force is a spiritual entity that can be
actualized by those that understand it: the Jedi who utilize it for good, only killing
when they have no choice and the Sith who use the dark side for their own ends,
becoming corrupted by it in the process. Such works emit a clear interpretation of
how we should and should not act as people. The many plots of battles between good
and evil depicted throughout the history of narrative show the reasoning behind
compassion, tolerance, control and many other aspects of humane behavior in a form
that is easily digested.

Much of what I have referred to holds some sentiment to natural order and spirituality
as well as just conduct, but all are interlinked; it seems that it is the way in which
narrative works (weather factual or fictitious) are perceived plays a roll overbearing to
the weight of their content, though something well written is much more likely last as
timeless works have.

Partially due to the influx of new mediums and increasing access for people to speak
through them it could be seen that what once stood as well formed and poignant
definitions within narrative (the good and the bad) are no longer always so clear. With
the popularization of the antihero and the blurring of the lines that has come about
through a greater understanding of the human condition in the postmodern era, it is
now harder than ever to tell wrong from right.

With a never ending host of new material, often plagiarizing old, out there for any who
choose to look, guidelines can still be seen, unfortunately it involves more looking for
now; while we live in a free society it comes down simply to that – choice, we can
ignore all that is indicated to us or accept it as gospel, unfortunately there are many
fraudulent prophets amongst those that indoctrinate the back pages and the airwaves.
All I can suggest is look closely.