Interestingly enough, the two use the phrase in two quite different respects. Zizek makes reference to the intellectual climate and its lack of self understanding. Morpheus (The Matrix), on the other hand, refers to the duality of a barren planet and a blank simulation program. the reference is ironic, for a barren planet inspires despair and a blank program (at least in the context of the movie) inspires hope. i have here used the same phrase with the intent of referring to the state of morality in the modern world. people die and no one cares, children starve and people watch 'american idol,' bombs explode and people cheer. here we will investigate what the 'desert of the real' means in regards to morality.
Some of this might come as a shock, particularly: morality is fictitious. This is not the same as 'morality is false,' or 'morality does not exist,' both of these interpretations would in fact be false. What I mean by 'fictitious' can be resolved into the use of the word in literary circles. Imagine that each group that would otherwise call themselves 'moral,' or 'righteous,' or some other such positive moral designation, is an author. What they write is what they might otherwise call their set of beliefs or moral code.
This may not be as hard to swallow as it seems. Indeed we have all come across another individual (representing a shared history with a specific group) or group of persons who have differing beliefs from our own. Some worship God, others Allah, still others do not worship but cultivate god from within. Superficially there may not be a world of difference between these denominations. Most religions teach kindness as a way of approaching others. Yet most religions also teach the absolute truth of their own doctrine above all others. Here I'm using religion for its convenient composite of a moral code. I do not wish to address the metaphysical beliefs held by these groups. Please bear in mind that one need not be religious or belong to a particular religion to be moral. Again, this is a clear example that is fairly uncontroversial. Moreover the duality of the doctrines of kindness and supremacy is a feature shared by most moral groups and individuals. This duality is 'the real' of morality and it necessarily results in 'the desert.'
Keeping in mind the fictional status of morality, in general and for specific groups, we should understand 'the desert' in the empty-but-potential-laden sense used by Morpheus. We can create morality whenever we chose, like authors writing novels. It would simply be untrue to say that the moral climate is barren like an actual desert. What we see looks more like a rainforest than a desert. But still it is the fundamental nature of each moral code to have within it the duality, described above as 'the real.' If there are any doubts here, simply ask yourself: why do I believe what I believe? The answer should come in the form of 'because my beliefs are correct.' Even if our beliefs include the possibility that other moral codes may be simultaneously correct, this in itself is a moral code that we ultimately believe to be correct.
Now, we can inquire into the causal factors that may have contributed to us having the set of beliefs about right and wrong that we have, but note that this is merely an appeal to some external authority regarding the validity of our beliefs. We need not do this when we act in ways we might consider as 'good' or 'right.' Indeed our particular set of beliefs gains its truth status simply by our believing in it. If we do not believe or come to not believe in some moral code then that code is false for us or our group. This should accurately describe the supremacy side of the fundamental duality in every moral code.
The supremacy is reinforced by the doctrine of kindness. Remember, that which is considered 'kind' and that which is considered 'unkind' are described by the code itself. What we have here is a circular argument. My set of morals is the one true set of morals. To which we can ask, why? Because it tells people to treat others with 'kindness.' To this we can ask, why is that idea of 'kindness' the way people should be treated? The response here is that this way of 'kindness' is the one true way of kindness, by which we have completed the circle.
In general we can find two ways of supporting such a circular line of reasoning. The first is simply to assert that the argument is true. This can be done by force, the threat of force, limiting of other options, or simply by choosing to believe. When we reflect on these options we find that choosing to believe the circular argument of any moral code is the only way that a code can originate. When a code is enforced the first person to do so must have at some time, perhaps unconsciously, decided to believe that X is the way people should live because it is the one true way for people to live. This is exactly how we can find ourselves in a world full of morality but lacking any real responsibility.
In the earlier parts of the twentieth century, some wealthy nations came to the realization that not everyone on the planet lived as well as they did and so began a campaign to help the unfortunate of third-world countries like Africa and India. This movement took the form of a mass effort to convert indigenous people to the one true way of living. Obviously, since the subjects of this conversion already believed that the way they lived was the one true way of living little headway was made. Now the effort has shifted from converting people to the one true way of living to convincing people that the one true way to live, at a minimum, includes tolerance and respect for others with differing beliefs. However one notes very little difference between these efforts.
...and life goes on. The moral (pun intended) of this tale is that when morality is a creative project, it cannot but be a project limited to the group of people one interacts with in high-frequency. In the age of the Internet, the people we interact with need not be our neighbors or fellow citizens. Nevertheless, the collaborative project of writing a morality is functionally the same: a group of people adopts a particular code, or premise of a code, that best suits the desires that weigh more than being objectively 'good' (if such a thing can even be defined). This is why Oxfam will never make a difference. People will help or donate to the point where their particular doctrine of kindness is satisfied and then continue about their business. A moral code would not be a good thing to have if it prevented you from doing the things you want to do.
We can still author beliefs that embrace all of the high moral values of a culture far better than the collective efforts of humanity, but this code will never become a reality until its relevance is universal and its functionality accommodates the varying wishes and desire of the disparate people of planet Earth.
