Main Philosophy
The Origin of Morality
The emergence of morality can be most easily assessed when we, again, return to its primal state as a simple descriptor of right and wrong. At this stage, only two options existed, good or bad, and life was based upon increasing the positive and minimizing occurrences of the negative. The original concept of morality is not necessarily limited to humans or advanced primates. In all living creatures, there exists an innate need for self-propagation that has created various mechanisms to “increase†the positive morality and extend the creature’s chance of survival. Obviously, this is a much more selfish system, but we must also remember that at this time no society existed to label any emotion such as selfishness as “immoral”. Thus, the birth of morality coincided with the dawn of life; morality is therefore as natural an impulse as flight from danger.
The evolution of morality to its present state was caused by a combination of elements mainly arising from the intellectual “advancement” of humans. With their growth, humans arranged into groups, villages, and eventually civilizations that gave rise to the societal influence on morality that was described in the preceding entry. This created a cage around individual morality, such that the individual could only judge their actions within the preset scale. Another aspect that changed morality is separation. As a primitive species, Homo sapiens did not segregate because of color or any other aspects; only the environment was able to separate them into different continents and eventually into sub-species. Why was morality not a prominent issue on a primitive earth? Because without any separation (social, racial, spiritual, religious…) there is only a single moral system because the individual is the whole. This does not mean that there is no individuality within this group, only equality. One event has the same moral implications for everyone in that the individual’s moral reaction is equivalent to the group’s.
The distance between all the sub-species of humans created a minute biological difference but an enormous mental difference. The effects of the environment from an intellectual and biological point-of-view have been studied and proven by examining the adaptive radiation of a species across a single continent. The different surroundings on a single continent created marked changes in the lives of the species; therefore an even more prominent change can be expected of humans who spread across the entire globe. The evolution of humans into subspecies illustrates the birth of modern morality because the diversity and individuality that was created by evolution also created a moral diversity representative, again, of their surroundings. This does not mean that all North Americans now have the exact same “morality”, since the very knowledge of diversity propagates it. Individuality is the root of morality. When the first creature distinguished “I” from “us”, the moral scope of everything changed to incorporate another world.
Morals vs. Ideals
At its most basic state, morality dictates whether an event or static object is right or wrong. For example, a simple judgment of the proper positioning of a brick in a structure institutes a query upon the person’s moral database. Although the morality of the preceding situation may not be as blurred as others, it is a useful example because it illustrates the moral process.
The question is initiated at the recognition of a situation with, in our simplified situation, a right or wrong answer. The morality arises from the person’s assessment of the pros and cons of the event. The decision is based upon what amounts to a simple appraisal of the event’s respective advantages versus its disadvantages; an action with more advantages would be more “right” or moral and would therefore be performed. Similarly, an action with more detrimental aspects would be immoral and would not be execute and measures would be taken to prevent its execution.
A question that arises from this painfully simplified demonstration is if morality is a simple balance; a scale that allows the user to ignore all of the negative (immoral) factors so long as the positive factors are a feather heavier. Is the murder of twenty an acceptable consequence of the saving of twenty one? In the literal example of morality, the structure would stand as long as the support exceeded the stress. However, a more complex situation results in a more complex (but understandable) solution. On the advanced moral scale, a positive weight still outweighs the negative, with a limit set such that any action with negative results beyond this limit is automatically rendered as immoral.
Obviously, this is only the framework of a moral system that is as varied as it is prevalent. While people differ in the implementation of this system and even in its existence within them, there are certain aspects of morality itself that eclipse individual systems.
Generally, the primary source of an individual’s moral code is not themselves, but the family and society. Personal ideals that arise from intellectual growth are overpowered by the collective morality that is the product of sheer mass. The effect of the Many can most easily be seen when describing a more extreme situation: throughout the modern world, cannibalism is perceived as the most heinous and most immoral act (Psychology Today, 2002). However, in many tribes cannibalism is considered an honor with the leading figures in the tribe gaining the deceased’s wisdom from their flesh. Although the members of the tribe are still governed by a collective moral basis, it differs from the accepted code of conduct of western civilizations. Thus, society not only dictates certain settings on the figurative moral scale, but also determines the fulcrum.
Society removes individuality by impressing its moral code. The human mind is, by nature, infinite in terms of creative and intellectual capacity. By not allowing the individual to determine their own morals, society is essentially capping creativity by censoring actions (and therefore thoughts) beyond a certain, morally acceptable range. If the human mind is allowed to generate its own system, it will be open-ended. Certain actions will be deemed immoral based on personal experience of the result of this action, and nothing will be dismissed based on collective opinion. Morality has become too tainted of a term describing the choking thoughts of society; instead, we must embrace our ideals based upon our lives.
To live fully is to reject the shackles of collective morality and adopt the fulfillment of an infinite life based upon individual ideals.
