Why is it important to have a philosophy of morality?
Let me make one point clear right at the beginning. There is no “pure” morality in our society or in our hearts and minds. We all want to have or create a pure state of morality but it’s just not possible as a human race prone to error and emotions. We can and do build foundations on principles or values that appear to be logical and rational in nature and content but in all reality, may not apply to all situations in life.
They are not lasting, definitive or firm foundations. They are in fact mere inspirational ideas, thoughts or actions based on personal desires or outcomes. Flawed from the moment they are created, there is no such thing as a perfect morality. There is no such existence of a perfect moral value or legislative law in existence today in our world. What may be rational or logical for some, may in fact be contrary to the culture and practices of others.
Rather than attaining a point of acknowledgement, we have to accept the fact we are really at a point of departure. A departure from the ideal humanly inspired principle or values that shapes our morality. So the question is, how do we construct a pure philosophy of morality?
What laws of nature do we apply? What laws of religion do we apply? What constitutional rights do we forgo and still retain our freedoms? What rational or sense of direction do we use? Is it the good for many versus the good of a few or is it good versus evil and nothing falls in the middle?
The reality is by virtue of being human, there is no perfect answer to such a rule. There will always be a conflict between the laws of nature versus the laws of freedom. Do we need a moral force? Who will enforce this morality force; the police, the establishments, or the governments?
What in the name of anthropology, psychology, and sociology do we apply and how much weight does that value carry in the enforcement realm? Moral enforcement should not be based on non-scientific considerations or values.
It should not be man-made but on the other hand, does this power come from religions people worship and value as their means of living the good word. Neither options are acceptable and we stand to show there is no pure moral force nor is there a pure moral rule.
Do we include moral obligations or do we include human feelings? Does this philosophy deny the fact that this may be the difference between what people want and what people need? As I see it today, there is no pure moral force or rule today and I don’t think it will ever be.
Society does not have the fairest or the most judicial means to weigh the true nature of morality. What may be fair and impartial for others may in fact be unfair and biased for others.
It comes down to what people actually do versus what they actually feel. It defines the common sense ideology of duty, honor, integrity, and other tangible and intangible elements of human emotions and characteristics. How you invoke these philosophies and make them law or rule is most questionable.
More importantly, how do we inject morality as a universal law when the universe does not have one rule or one constant value among the human race? All said, it cannot be applied with a universal law of reason as reasons differ in various cultures.
Nobody argues the fact that there has to be a binding force to enforce the law. There have to be common agreement to determine particular norms within a society and deal with them if they breach the common trust of society.
However, how do we find a binding force that in inclusive of all cultural factors and how do we make it universally binding. The fact is we can only come to a partial agreement that morals are universally applicable. This is weighed by the benefit to society rather than a natural, religious or the right of freedom.
It has been said human beings are rational beings. Far from perfect, a rational being can be wrong as well as those acting irrational as it becomes an inference or perception that conflicts with each other at a specific moment in time.
Using the sign of the times as an example, we can see fatal weaknesses in the rational approach when something external is influencing the definitions of what are moral acts and what are unlawful acts. If permitted to violate the rules by some and not of others, where do we find peace of mind and an acceptable situation?
Is society trying to find laws or moral rules which turns into something binding regardless of all natural or cultural factors? If something is law then it must be universally binding to be considered a pure law.
However, when you question this law, is it morally in tune with the needs of society and their pursuit of justice? This can go on and on but one thing is clear, human beings are not rational for the status of being rational is defined by a political, religious or selfish sense of value and approach.
Let me make one point clear right at the beginning. There is no “pure” morality in our society or in our hearts and minds. We all want to have or create a pure state of morality but it’s just not possible as a human race prone to error and emotions. We can and do build foundations on principles or values that appear to be logical and rational in nature and content but in all reality, may not apply to all situations in life.
They are not lasting, definitive or firm foundations. They are in fact mere inspirational ideas, thoughts or actions based on personal desires or outcomes. Flawed from the moment they are created, there is no such thing as a perfect morality. There is no such existence of a perfect moral value or legislative law in existence today in our world. What may be rational or logical for some, may in fact be contrary to the culture and practices of others.
Rather than attaining a point of acknowledgement, we have to accept the fact we are really at a point of departure. A departure from the ideal humanly inspired principle or values that shapes our morality. So the question is, how do we construct a pure philosophy of morality?
What laws of nature do we apply? What laws of religion do we apply? What constitutional rights do we forgo and still retain our freedoms? What rational or sense of direction do we use? Is it the good for many versus the good of a few or is it good versus evil and nothing falls in the middle?
The reality is by virtue of being human, there is no perfect answer to such a rule. There will always be a conflict between the laws of nature versus the laws of freedom. Do we need a moral force? Who will enforce this morality force; the police, the establishments, or the governments?
What in the name of anthropology, psychology, and sociology do we apply and how much weight does that value carry in the enforcement realm? Moral enforcement should not be based on non-scientific considerations or values.
It should not be man-made but on the other hand, does this power come from religions people worship and value as their means of living the good word. Neither options are acceptable and we stand to show there is no pure moral force nor is there a pure moral rule.
Do we include moral obligations or do we include human feelings? Does this philosophy deny the fact that this may be the difference between what people want and what people need? As I see it today, there is no pure moral force or rule today and I don’t think it will ever be.
Society does not have the fairest or the most judicial means to weigh the true nature of morality. What may be fair and impartial for others may in fact be unfair and biased for others.
It comes down to what people actually do versus what they actually feel. It defines the common sense ideology of duty, honor, integrity, and other tangible and intangible elements of human emotions and characteristics. How you invoke these philosophies and make them law or rule is most questionable.
More importantly, how do we inject morality as a universal law when the universe does not have one rule or one constant value among the human race? All said, it cannot be applied with a universal law of reason as reasons differ in various cultures.
Nobody argues the fact that there has to be a binding force to enforce the law. There have to be common agreement to determine particular norms within a society and deal with them if they breach the common trust of society.
However, how do we find a binding force that in inclusive of all cultural factors and how do we make it universally binding. The fact is we can only come to a partial agreement that morals are universally applicable. This is weighed by the benefit to society rather than a natural, religious or the right of freedom.
It has been said human beings are rational beings. Far from perfect, a rational being can be wrong as well as those acting irrational as it becomes an inference or perception that conflicts with each other at a specific moment in time.
Using the sign of the times as an example, we can see fatal weaknesses in the rational approach when something external is influencing the definitions of what are moral acts and what are unlawful acts. If permitted to violate the rules by some and not of others, where do we find peace of mind and an acceptable situation?
Is society trying to find laws or moral rules which turns into something binding regardless of all natural or cultural factors? If something is law then it must be universally binding to be considered a pure law.
However, when you question this law, is it morally in tune with the needs of society and their pursuit of justice? This can go on and on but one thing is clear, human beings are not rational for the status of being rational is defined by a political, religious or selfish sense of value and approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment