On Prohibitions and Obligations

If we divide morals into two categories – things we shouldn’t do, and things that we are obligated to do – in general I would say Canadian culture has more focus on the first, and Mexican culture more on the second.  Of course, this is a very broad generalization, but I would say there is a definite tendency.

 

In Canada, when people speak of morals we generally formulate the idea in prohibitions; I remember my teenaged years that the measure of a moral life was often that of what we didn’t do; we weren’t supposed to listen to music that might have a negative influence on our lives, do drugs, etc.  Even in adult life, we tend to look at doing good in these terms; men shouldn’t cheat on their wives, people shouldn’t steal or commit fraud, etc.

 

Even people who have “liberated” themselves from morals usually see life from the same point of view; the basic question is “How much can I get away for my own sake?”  On the “moral” side people will tend towards saying “nothing” – we have to follow the prohibition.  On the “non-moral” side people tend to towards the idea that you can get away with what ever you like for your own sake.

 

The downside of this angle is that the focus tends to be on a prohibition and how far someone can bend that prohibition to their own convenience – in the end the debates concerning these prohibitions tend to be self-centered.  Of course, the good side is that there definitely are actions which are bad for us, or are unfair to others to whom we have responsibility, etc. and so they really are best avoided.

 

In Mexico, there seems to be less of a concern for prohibitions and a higher concern for obligations.  From my experience Mexicans will see their morals in light of what they should do for other people; I should call my mother, because she’ll feel good, I should give things to other people who need them, I should let people stay in my house, even if I don’t know them, etc.  Of course, a Mexican could reject this kind of morals as much as Canadians could reject prohibitions. The difference isn’t in how moral people are, but how those who see themselves as leading a moral life define those morals.

 

I’ve found along with this tendency in Mexico, people either take the prohibitions for granted, or simply ignore them altogether.  There is less debate or tension about how far prohibitions can be taken.  Of course, the second situation (ignoring the prohibitions all together) leads to some problems; i.e. a man helps his neighbours with work and gives to the poor, but cheats on his wife.  He’s active in moral obligations, but not terribly concerned with prohibitions.

 

Again, these are very broad generalizations.  Both Canada and Mexico include both views, but it’s a question of tendency.  It makes a difference in how we view the other culture; at a first glance Mexican culture may seem very immoral to a Canadian concerned with morals because of the apparent lack of inhibitions.  On the other hand, Canada may look very immoral to Mexican eyes – it may look self-centred, cold or even greedy. Understanding how another culture defines a moral life is important.