The Moral Compass

http://www.youtube.com/user/dickieregenerate#p/a/u/0/ZUsdnUHBmPQ


1. Background

In my discussion, “Blueprint for a spiritual urban landscape” (2009) , the results of a cursory analysis of three typical religious building types (church, mosque, Hindu temple), suggested that these places commonly offer the following ten social functions or activities:

1. Landmark and calling

2. Ablution

3. Orientation & congregation

4. Procession

5. Leading ritual

6. Leadership & teaching morals

7. Making music

8. Private contemplation

9. Studying & learning

10. Remembrance & icon reverence

I went on to describe an architectural blue-print for a modern urban social space that could fill any social gaps resulting from increased atheism and/or falling attendance rates.

The design was based around the innate symbolism of “nature” as opposed to cultural symbolism of “nurture”. This follows an earlier discussion, “Are we talking the same language? (2009)” , suggesting that abstract, cultured or overused symbolism can lead to misinterpretation and confusion. Anyone from any social or cultural background asking: “Why would I go there? - would be doing so rhetorically.

Critical Review

On reflection, the scope of a spiritual urban landscape design is too immense. Further, the results of the research apply equally to non-spiritual places. For that reason, I have now focused the discussion on point 6: Morality.

2. The evolution of morality

First, it is important to understand that morality is result of evolution, not a creation of God.

Genetic and animal behavioural studies, cited by Richard Dawkins, have shown there is strong evidence that behaviour such as altruism, reciprocal altruism and group co-operation are favoured through natural selection. Are decisions on “right” and “wrong” also naturally selected?

According to Dr Andy Thompson , recent neuroscience experiments have used the “runaway trolley dilemma” to show that there are two levels of moral controlled by different parts of the brain. First, deep moral rules (e.g. don’t kill) are controlled by an old (in evolutionary terms) part of the brain. He cites Haidt and Joseph (2004) who argued that there are five such domains that can trigger innate response:

                                                        Negative                 Positive

                                                      (Back away)             (Approach)

1. Harm/Care                                                                 e.g. It will shelter me

2. Reciprocity / fairness                                                  e.g. It will scratch my back, if I scratch its

3. Authority / hierarchy                                                   e.g. It is my peer

4. Community / coalitions                                               e.g. It is in my group

5. Purity                                                                        e.g. It looks OK


Second, utilitarian rules (e.g. “it’s OK to kill one to save five”) are controlled in a younger part of the brain. This part essentially performs justification and has evolved in response to social animals living in complex social situations. So an immediate gut-instinct or knee-jerk is followed by a second “yes, but what if” dampener.

Interestingly, when the runaway trolley dilemma is performed across different cultures, the results tend to be the same. This may explain how utilitarian philosophers such as Kant, Bentham and Mill have been able to define credible universal laws of consequence rooted across many cultures:

• “Act only on that maxim, whereby thou canst at the same time will that it become a universal law” (Kant)

• “The greatest good for the greatest number of people” (Bentham).

3. Societal change brings a crisis of morality

This moral conflict of older innate rules versus newer utilitarian justification continues within individuals living in an evolving UK society increasingly multi-cultural, free-thinking and secular society. Significant social trends that I believe currently affect individual morality and behaviour includes:

1. Continued religious fundamentalism (from Islam sponsored in the middle-East to Jewish/Christian funded in the USA) in leaders with imperialistic undertones leading to war, terrorism and general intolerance

2. Increased secularity and fall in Church attendance, leading to a weakening of the influence historically offered in religious places by church leaders

3. Decreased empowerment of local agencies by big government, combined with recent declining moral standing and credibility of politicians leading to increased disillusionment with the democratic process

4. Increased working hours including commuting mean that there are fewer hours available to spend on local social activities, leading to fewer opportunities for physical interaction

5. Increased abilities through genetic technology to change the natural course of evolution (of plants and animals including ourselves), leading to changed social demographics such as an increasing and ageing population

6. Increased influence of new media technology (digital TV, internet, mobile phones through which individual values and beliefs can be influenced), leading to the movement of social control from real local place to virtual space

7. Increased “worship” of celebrities as social role models, again meaning fantasy is replacing local reality as the driving of social control and change

As society continues to evolve, to what extent are daily ethical positions and moral decisions influenced? Is society “broken”? Does the speed of societal and technological change mean that a new shared utilitarian law has yet to evolve? And who, if anyone, will society trust to codify that?

What can Landscape Architects do, if anything, to help find solutions to such problems, whether real or perceived?

 
4. It’s good to meet and talk

It’s good to talk and technology has made that even easier. It’s even good to watch and listen to other people talk through modern media. TV debates range from Question Time on a Thursday night and The Big Questions on Sunday morning, to the daily talk shows such as The Jeremy Kyle show. The internet provides myriad social forums such as comment blogs of daily on-line newspapers to groups on Facebook.

I wonder, however, how much misunderstanding and conflict is prevented or resolved satisfactorily via technology as opposed to in person? I suggest that most conflicts – from major wars, social unrest and family argument - have been resolved around a “negotiating table”, through inter-personal discourse at the Forum in ancient Rome to Camp David in modern Maryland, and from ACAS headquarters to the family dinner table.

The social trends I describe make it less easy for people to meet physically. My thesis is that we need to create opportunities for social meeting and that this needs to be an almost ritualistic experience. Landscape Architects, as designers and creators of public place, must be challenged to create opportunities for that ritualistic meeting and debate to take place. For that reason, my objective is to design places called the “Moral Compass”.

5. The Moral Compass Design Brief

The Moral Compass will be a designed space in the urban landscape that all members of a local society – secular or otherwise - can turn into a place for thinking about and debating topical and local moral issues. It must be physically accessible by all.

The Moral Compass will be designed to neither resemble a place of religion nor a place of making or enforcing law. It will however be designed to:

• Encourage local debate

• Encouraging individual freethinking based on scientific enquiry

• Enable individuals to find their innate morals and to develop shared utilitarian beliefs

The Moral Compass design will have clear:

• Function – whereby the activity on offer is plain, rhetorically

• Legibility – with a strong floor plan and structure

• Ritual – which will either be adopted or created where this does not exist.

The Moral Compass will be sited in the landscape on the highest ground available. It will be a landmark structure that serves to shelter the collected thinkers and debaters during all states of weather. It will be built by the local community using local labour out of local materials.

The Moral Compass will be surrounded by a body of water. Water is also innately spiritual and a bridge will bring innate feelings of hope and opportunity. The vantage point will offer large uninterrupted vistas.

The Moral Compass will hold meetings at regular periods. Fire - and smoke - will be used as a call to gatherings (as there is symbolic religious and patriotic baggage associated with ringing bells and raising standards respectively.)

The Moral Compass structure will provide shelter whilst being open to the sky, so allowing sun’s rays and the night sky to enter. Verticality (defiance of gravity) will be enhanced through “trompe l’oiel”. The main debating chamber will be circular an in the form of a compass representing shared moral orientation.

The Moral Compass will house banks of seating facing each other to symbolise and encourage meeting and debate. There will be a small raised platform for speaking or facilitating.

6. Precedents

Moot Hill and Hall

Moot means assembly. In Anglo-Saxon England, the elders of the hundred would meet in low ring-shaped earthworks called moot hills or moot mounds to decide on issues. Some of these acquired permanent buildings, known as moot halls. The hills were surrounded by ditches, sometimes filled with water requiring use of a boat of raise walkway/bridge. Crossing this boundary signified a change in jurisdiction. At times it would be necessary to summon people to gather at the moot. This was sometimes done by ringing a bell, which was fitted upon or beside the moot hill, or by raising a flag. It is also likely that bonfires would have been lit as a signal, either from the smoke during the day or the light at night.