TV Morality
I mentioned previously that the attitude of the Chinese government to the Tiananmen Square massacre was very different to that in the West. Their attitude is based on pragmatism and boils down to this: if a few lives have to be sacrificed to prevent the deaths of thousands, then so be it. To a certain extent this is the attitude of the Australian government to Asylum seekers. By introducing mandatory detention they claim that masses of potential boat people have been dissuaded from taking the life-threatening journey in poorly prepared boats that could have resulted in the possible deaths of hundreds or even thousands of people. The fact that the previous flood of boat people has been reduced to a trickle would seem to support that idea.
This is contrary to what I call ‘Star Trek Morality’. For those who don't know
the series, Star Trek depicts a civilisation in the 23rd century where a star
ship explores new civilisations. Although this is supposed to be period where
there is world peace and no nations as we currently know them, the culture on
the ship is a US one, the world government is modeled on the US system and the
legal system and morality is very much based on current US thinking. I've mentioned
before how this attitude has shaped US foreign policy (‘People and Cultures’).
In the Star Trek series the heroes never kill criminals but bring them to justice.
Even when this could risk disaster the crew always do the ‘right thing’. Of
course, this is a TV program and it always comes out right in the end. Real
life isn't so benign. In the TV series there is never a trade off. It’s not
that morals should be negotiable; it’s rather that any moral code has to be
a living thing. A moral code that is simply a rigid interpretation of words
in a book is going to give rise to situations that have completely the opposite
effect to their intention. This is apparent when you see rigid interpretations
of the Bible or the Koran. The Taliban beat women who, even accidentally, exposed
so much as an ankle. This was never the intention of Mohammed who treated women
with the utmost respect.
With regard to moral stances, the opinions of the masses are very much molded
by the media. A report of attempts to rescue a child trapped down a well may
be followed by millions who collectively feel each success and setback is if
it was their own child. Meantime, thousands of people are killed on the roads.
If the media chooses to emphasise the plight of a few people killed in Tiananmen
Square or the problems faced by a few asylum seekers, the masses are eager to
go along with it. In many cases the only chance these people get to feel any
real emotion is when the media manipulates them. They're like people who can’t
appreciate subtle cooking and will only eat processed food in the form of a
McDonalds hamburger. Because it’s the only emotions they feel, they think it
has more value than it really has. I've mentioned this before (‘Opposites’).
