by Angelito » Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:35 am
Unless you follow Kant, morality is relative.
Having sex with somebody other than your wife is an immoral act - why? According to Kant, it's immoral because if everybody did it, we'd be in a state of free fall. For Mills, if the consequence is positive, you may do it. Yet, who decides what's positive and what's negative?
The thing is that ethics and morals are closely determined to avoid anarchy. It's a societal thing - that is regulated by thinkers and philosophers to "make this world an amicable place."
As long as you're not harming somebody, I believe the action is moral. I have a free will that I can exercise as much as I want. There's a classic example that I have the right to swing my fist, but do not have the right to connect it with somebody else's nose.
The ultimate principle is not to do any harm to others. What harm is - is another question.
1. What shapes your moral views?
Judgment and context underlined by universality.
2. Do you think your Morality is superior than anyone else's?
No. I'm not a modernist.
3. Would the World be a better place is everyone acted in line with your interpretation of Morality?
Perhaps, but diversity is the reason why the world is good. The only thing that makes good--good--is the presence of bad.
4. Do you feel the need to impose your sense of Morality on others and why?
No, I'm not a modernist again. There are several ways people function based on society, culture, genes, psychology, and philosophy. The aim is to accumulate collective wisdom - not acquired habitual pattern.
Stealing is intrinsically considered wrong, but if a pauper starving steals a loaf of bread from the bakery, is the action right or wrong? It's wrong because stealing isn't right - according to a traditional definition, but if that loaf saves her life, it's the "greater good," no?
Ultimately, I feel the government should be responsible for its citizens. The society should be responsible for people and the community for its members. The base of unethical act is rooted in matter, more so than spirit. Capitalism doesn't help this, yet communism isn't the way forward as well - because it restricts human freedom. A middle path between capitalistic tendencies and communist model is what we need. Is that socialism? Could be, but that has its innate flaws in itself.
Morality searches for Utopia, which is impossible. No government could achieve that. Only through self-determination and self-consciousness - can we reach close to a state where everybody strives to make everybody at ease. With unequal distribution of resources, that's not possible, and with the inherent flaws in human beings, it becomes mythical to achieve such a state.
Our education system together with religion has set the stage for inequality and immorality. As long as we focus on the goal, and not on the means, we're never going to find a perfect moral code. And once a code is formed, it becomes an imposed set of rules, which is against human nature.
When we speak of religion, I feel Zen Buddhism, Taoism, and Vedanta Philosophy are best suited in the modern world. But one just can't abide and ignore the rest of the world, in all its flaws and inconsistencies, which is why we become forced to "compromise," and a blend into the mix.
If we all followed Kant's model, we aren't even allowed to defend ourselves from abuse. If somebody beats us and points a gun to our face, we're supposed to call the authorities instead of using our freewill to defend ourselves because using freewill, in such a case, would be to injure or kill the criminal in response, which according to Kant - is an unethical act. What do we do then?
If we believe in consequences, we may hurt that person in return, but if - by doing so - we end up fatally injuring or killing the person, what happens if we realize that he had a child and his child will now grow up without a family?
I believe in non-initiation of what we consider immoral, but if somebody else initiates it - we can refute it. We are and should, and we have the freedom to.
For instance, cops question us if they suspect us of foul play. They have the laws to back their approach. But if I'm innocent, then they're violating my rights, which nobody seems to account to.
Ultimately, it's the "I" spirit and the presence of "ego," in us that makes us act in the way we do. If we remain detached and consider this world a big family, I doubt we'd see as much chaos as we do now.