Morality: Who Decides?

Vancouver's successful project in harm-reduction, Insite, has saved lives.  35% fewer overdose deaths in the infamous downtown eastside of the city, following decades of tragedy as addicts succumbed to the unpredictable potency of heroin purchased illegally.  Doctors, judges, politicians with compassion, residents of the east Hastings area, criminologists, sociologists and those who object to the criminalization of addicts, all applaud the project.  The federal government has reluctantly suspended the Criminal Act so research could be conducted on the safe injection site project, while simultaneously calling it immoral. 

Just a minute here....  saving lives is immoral, but sending young people off to kill other young people is o.k. because the invading force always has the moral advantage, I guess.  Oops, not when it is the other country's army that is invading us.  This moralizing stuff gets tricky. 

Did Bradley Manning have it right when he decided getting the truth out about atrocities and lies at the highest level of government?  Oh, I guess not, because he is facing life in prison.  But, he is getting much support from others who made similar choices, and he reportedly is steadfast in his belief that it was the right thing to do.

Whistle-blowing is rarely rewarded in any material sense, and can, in fact, cause the blower a lot of anguish, so what drives someone to make the decision?  That is a personal and individual thing, but for some the internal dissonance is unbearable, and the resolution of the dilemma is to spill the beans, and damn the consequences.  Those consequences can be loss of job, of friends, family can turn against you, and in the U.S. this can mean life imprisonment or the death penalty.  If the blower is firm in their belief that they did the right thing, sometimes the satisfaction that comes with "doing the right thing" compensates for other consequences.

Moral development and cultural norms go hand in hand, along with family values (I mean the values your family instills, not the values Conservative governments spew).  Interesting the way conservatives tend to frame their values as the only "family values".  Our morals develop through experience at home, in the community, at school, through activities and entertainment we are exposed to.  Spirituality is wound into all of those, I believe, rather than sitting apart from other experience.  Genetics probably play a role not yet understood. 

Kohlberg presented his ideas on moral development, and Carol Gilligan contributed her feminist version, with variations following.  My interest is in the idea that moral decision-making develops through stages as do other types of development, not necessarily at the same pace as chronological development or physical maturation.  The feminist/masculinist conflict/comparsion isn't the key interest for me.  The idea that individual morality develops along with the capacity for more abstract thought clarified much for me.  Some remain stuck on following the rules regardless of the rationality of the rules and some will break the rules if they believe that is the right thing for the common good.  Some just follow their gut, inner voice, intuition or their version of god(dess) communicates the "right" path in some way.

So, I believe Tony Clement put his foot in his mouth when he loudly proclaimed that providing a safe injection site for heroin addicts is immoral.  He didn't realize that so many intelligent people saw his statement as ludicrous, perhaps he thought he would score political points with his strongly held views.  Perhaps it didn't occur to him that heroin addicts are someone's son, daughter, sister, friend, mother or father?  Perhaps he forgot or never realized that people who struggle with addiction, trauma, poverty, and prejudice are individuals that deserve love, support, and dignity.  Perhaps it is his moral development that is lacking.  Good luck with that, Tony.