 |
| courtesy - Phoenix Tattoos |
The word morality basically means “the quality of thinking
and behaving in a manner based on morals or moral attitudes or conduct”. Morals
stand for a set of rules or a system that distinguishes between right and
wrong, to put in a nut shell. The further one studies the definitions – they
are subject to division as normative and descriptive.
Descriptive definition of morality speaks of a set of rules
or attitudes or a system of right and wrong imposed on the individual by
society, a section of the society (country, faith, religion etc.) or by the
individual himself/herself. Normative definition, on the other hand, speaks of
morality that is present universally as a result of rationality in humans and
that every human is capable of imposing and subscribing to intrinsically. In
both cases though, it is a set of rules that is imposed on a person and has the
capacity to modify or govern his or her interaction with the world.
Now, while the definitions can be understood easily with the
help of a single Google search, the theories behind them require a little more
comprehensive reading to be appreciated well.
I myself am going to grasp at this lofty branch of
philosophy and various social sciences (and biology), from a motivated layman’s
perspective; not due to any misgivings about the established conclusions but in
order to challenge my own intellect and capabilities of reasoning beyond the
usual analytic ‘surface scratching’ I restrict my writing to.
So, let’s begin with ‘Is morality necessary for a person’.
In this case, we shall focus on the word at its simplest
level of conceptual existence – as a way of thinking that identifies and makes
decisions based on right and wrong.
From any perspective you look at it, it seems fairly obvious
that it (as a macro concept) is not an intentional creation or an inorganic
construct manufactured by our thoughts. It almost seems natural that it exists,
as a sort of component in that grand design of nature that strives to maintain
and encourage life. To be clearer as to what I'm getting at, I'm suggesting
that it was inevitable that evolution provide us with a rulebook for social
conduct. I think morality was born out of natural progression of social growth.
Of course, there are differences and divisions in the particular moral guides
of many sections of the population, though almost all of them have the same
motivating factor of ‘social acceptability’ driving their origins and
subsequent existence.
Having said that, do I think we should conform our individual
thinking to something that exists for the generalized ‘masses’? Or is it not
even a choice? I subscribe to the theory that it is in fact a choice.
I realize that sounds a bit sluggish as a precise argument
or suggestion. I was, actually, asking the reader if a particular individual’s
thought should be subjected, if he or she possesses superior logical faculties,
to a simplistic view on life which shapes in to nothing less than glorified
slavery to ideologically rigid and flawed rules. The short and curt reply from
my perspective would be no. I believe that the individual is capable of and
must choose to make decisions or solve problems based on the relevant data
pertaining to the event, independent of prefixed patterns.
Am I thinking this way because I am unable to put myself
outside the subjective vision and see clearly the necessity in the origins of such a system, the negating of which even at an individual level could have far
reaching implications? Well, it is possible I suppose.
But I think the whole analysis, in general, has more to do
with my natural inclination to question anything I perceive as non essential to
individual life. This mode of thinking has granted me certain perspectives on
various established ‘truths’ of social functioning as I see it.
Let me clarify my argument by mutually beneficial further
analysis.
Is morality, which means a ‘system’ of rules necessary for improving the quality of a
person’s life? Does the abidance to any such system grant him or her, a
particular advantage in the complex phenomenon of living?
One could argue at this juncture, the obvious prize of
social acceptance alone should mandate such obedience to a more or less
standard code of behaviour that exemplifies civility. But that would be over simplifying
the actual dynamics of inter and intra societal interactions.
To put it more bluntly, society does not always look upon
the moral and the ethical as the ideal nor does it always reward such behaviour with
positivity. Let me reiterate – I'm not denying that it ever happens, merely
pointing out the relational quality of such arrangements between the individual
and the society.
As one delves deeper in to the chaotic seas of social events
of all magnitudes, we find patterns and still deeper, we find underlying blocks
of the real dynamic, and more often than not, we conclude that any and all
interaction between two minds or between a mind and a collective, is
essentially a power struggle that manifests itself in other ways.
If this is true, then ‘set rules’ only serve as chains that
keep us bound, in perpetual codependency and discontent, to an intricate illusion which consumes our very minds and lives.
So, thought being the tool wielded by the individual and not
by the collective, it becomes not only necessary but desirable to argue the
possibility of a choice. Now, I realize how this sounds dangerously close to
advocating immorality as the norm, but this argument at its crux exists merely
to point out the flawed logic behind a standardized system that exerts an abundance of influence in a world that
idealizes the ability of the individual mind and idolizes the individual who
uses it to reap tangible and intangible benefits.
While this also then becomes an argument against any standardized
system, let us restrict ourselves to the topic of this essay, especially given the fact
that it encompasses a lot of other standards within it, by virtue of its nature.
The individual mind and its ability to choose, then, has to be
upheld, at least at a notional level, so that it serves as a way of combating,
in some small but necessary fashion, the creator less, ever changing sets of norms
and generalizations imposed on the whole of the population.
Is it truly so inconceivable to consider the possibility of not
having a moral code in mundane activties or even major life events? To see a problem as its own entity, in the light of variables that factor in to it without the guidance of established rules?
At least many of us reject the 'code' many times over in
our life times, except in cases where breaking those rules would inevitably
result in a personal loss of some kind. Not just material loss but loss of pride,
emotional stability, joy or even identity.
It is here that we see the influence of the established
codes on our very thought patterns and deeper psycho pathologies, even though
we, as individuals, remain aware of how dynamic and impermanent they are in their forms and life
spans.
What was acceptable as ‘right’ a few decades ago would not
necessarily be accepted as ‘right’ now. Even while basking in the knowledge of
this rather liberating fact, that demonstrates the easily recognizable deception
in the permanency the moral code claims while asking for subservience to it, we are not capable of utilizing it in any effective manner when it comes to our sense of judgement or even perception of the world.
Is it because there is a corresponding similarity in our
inherent perspective fuelled solely by our biology? That question is also up
for debate.
For example, if a child were to be brought up in a social
vacuum with no interaction with any of the agents of morality (models, rewards
or punishments), would that child be free of such limitations in thinking? Or does humanity hold within it the capacity
for such a divisional approach to life by birth?
If so, it becomes imperative that we look into what is the
significance behind the ‘right’ and the ‘wrong’. We have to analyse whether
these concepts, or rather the essence behind these symbols, have a life of
their own outside our own subjective and highly suggestible interpretations of
the perceived reality – i.e. does the natural world allow such distinctions in
it the spectrum of life that exists, apart from in our minds?
Is there an actuality called ‘good’ or is it merely a quality
we have assigned to certain aspects of existence in an attempt to categorize and quantify its abstract and often incomprehensible form? Can it objectively assist,
without the aid of comparison, in the definition of an individual’s ‘character’
or serve in his or her progression through life in a ‘successful’ manner?
Please wait for Part 3...
