Upstairs-Downstairs morality

Many readers will remember the British TV series Upstairs-Downstairs a kind of soap opera for intellectuals set in Edwardian and Georgian (George V) England with its strict rules of the aristocracy and the downstairs servant classes, where the morality of the servants was imposed on them by traditions laid down by the upper classes and the church, but that same morality did not apply to the upper class Aristocrats.

We seem to be living in an Upstairs-Downstairs world today.  Our Political leaders rail against all sorts of immoral behavior of their opposing parties, and it appears as if all these aristocratic leaders commit the same moral indiscretions no matter which political party or class from which they come.  In fact there might be made a good case that once a person become an aristocratic political leader, the rules of morality and common decency which they wish to apply to lower classes of society no longer apply to them.  In a sense one of the major reasons for becoming a political aristocrat is that one no longer has to obey the rules of morality, but only the rules of apparent decency with regard to one’s conduct.  If it has the appearance of impropriety, no expense in too much to cover it up or blame another party for one’s moral indiscretions.  Morality no longer becomes a matter of values and obedience to the principles in general imposed on lower classes, but rather the values of “how it appears” is uppermost in the aristocratic mind such that a good living can be made acting as cover for the aristocrat’s missteps. 

In fact one could also make a good case that this is on a sliding scale.  The professional class has rules of behavior which applies to them, but does not apply to the worker class.  For instance sexual dalliances and outright theft by professionals is tolerated to a large extent, while considered criminal or sinful if done by working class folks.  Thus if one commits these sins or crimes upon members of a class lower than oneself it seems out-rightly excusable, but if one does these same things to a member of one’s own class or a class above one’s own, then it is considered criminal or sinful.  Consider the sexual dalliances of our representatives and the outright theft of monies not belonging to them, but to their clients as examples of the above.  As of late many lower class individuals have become aware of the situation and there is a great political anger that their 401Ks have been looted by aristocrats living “high on the hog” so to speak, while they bear the pain of economic recovery both personal and national in the form of lost employment and employment opportunities and even cuts in pay or higher taxation in order that the economy of the government (and governments the world around) have the ability to sustain themselves.  The rules apply to lower classes only, it seems, prompting some preachers to declare: “if you want to steal, don’t steal from a convenience business or liquor store, and for heaven’s sake don’t bring a gun, but steal a little from each person that way you will easily get away with it or at most get a prison sentence in a luxury estate, but if you commit theft in the former fashion you will surely go to jail for a long time.”

The same applies to sexual dalliances.  If one commits a sexual indiscretion with someone who is a member of one’s own class it is scandalous, and if one commits the same indiscretion with someone of a class above, it is out-rightly sinful if not criminal; but if one commits the same with someone of a class lower than one’s own it is often excused or the other party is blamed for trying to “rise up” on the social ladder. 

Perhaps it is my working class roots, perhaps my education or my awareness of the times, but I have become dismayed that morality is more a matter of class than universal rules of behavior.  Immanuel Kant must be rolling over in his grave.  Since I am at root in the lower class, I cannot understand the current situation as my “betters” do.  Perhaps I’m downstairs and ought not to question what goes on upstairs or I will become less apt to think of upstairs folk as my “betters”.