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.