Each man is born with a desire to do the right thing, to act in a way that is in accordance with the laws of morality, whatever those laws may be. In the same way a bird seeks to fly south in the winter, or penguins know to trek across miles of frozen wilderness to lay their eggs, human beings have a need inside them to act upon their instinct, and part of our instinct is to want to do what is right. No man, no matter how vile and evil he may be, wakes up in the morning with the sudden desire to do the wrong thing; anything he does that is evil is either done with the belief that his deeds are indeed the right thing to do, or is an example of arrogance.
It is the intention of all men to do good, but it is within each of us the power to do evil
The moral being needs not gain a reward for his good deeds, nor does he require the threat of punishment for acting immorally, the moral being does not care about such things; all he/she needs is to know what is right and what is wrong. The moral being needs no motivation to do what is right, he needs no reason be it religious, philosophical, political, or otherwise. The moral being does not consider his well being before that of others, is not arrogant, and does not make judgments out of ignorance. The moral being is fully capable of committing acts of great evil and chooses not to without any reason other then because it wouldn’t be the right thing. The moral being seeks out truth, desires to learn what exactly it is which is moral, and when he finds the truth he lives his life in accordance to it.
The moral being might be ignorant, but never arrogant; firm, but never harsh. The moral beings respects the rights of others, and most and most importantly of all, a moral being NEVER harms a child in a way that is damaging to their mind or body. To harm a child is the ultimate sin a human being can commit.
That is the essence of the moral being.
4 comments:
I have to disagree with you on this one. We may be born with the capability to do either great good or great evil, but what we choose is decided by what we learn and how we are treated from the day we emerge from the birth canal.
If a child is treated with love and taught to respect others, and given rules and boundaries to maintain, that child will grow up to be a moral and ethical adult.
If a child is unloved and abused, given no boundaries and given conflicting rules and taught hatred for others, that child will reflect those same attitudes.
Sometimes a child of the second example is found and intervention can alter his/her behavior if it is not too late. But it takes an awful lot of love and therapy and dedication.
And of course there is the occasional sociopath, whose wiring is just crossed and nothing can be done about it.
I'll have to disagree, the child is born with a conception that right and wrong exist and a desire to do the right thing, but if that child is abused and mistreated they will never learn WHAT they are and so will form in their minds their own versions of right and wrong. This is why your own mind can't be a clear judge in deciding the right thing, because although you want to do the right thing, you are not born knowing what it is.
With the psychopathic child, at an early age I think that child will still try hard to please his/her parents in an effort to do right (once that child is old enough that is) because, hey, parents are the first beings a child comes into contact with. It is very possible for someone to become so abused they just don't care about right or wrong either way, they merge together and when that happens it doesn't matter anymore.
With older people however, I'd say almost all the time, unless they are from the said background, they find a need to justify their actions. Hitler, Stalin, etc. all tried to justify what they were doing, and in their twisted little heads they actually believed they were doing the right thing. THOSE are the people I'm mostly talking about, not the sicko, but the evil dictator and the "end justifies the means" crowd.
Another feelings we're born with, I think, is the sense of moral justice, which isn't the same as legal justice. Legal justice exist to keep society sage, moral justice however is the idea that if one person harms another, esp. if its you, that person must pay = to what you suffered. This is when guilt comes in, when you KNOW you've done wrong to someone and never pay for it then you feel guilt. It’s an idea, I could be wrong, but I like it. Thoughts?
I think the only things a child is born with regarding right and wrong are instinctual feelings about survival. If something pains the child, it isn't *right* but the child perceives it as discomfort or fear, not as any meaningful morality issue. That doesn't come into play until later in life when pleasing the parents instead of only the self enters in. Babies are all about self-satisfaction. So I still say they have no concept of what is generally considered right and wrong, until they are taught.
Would people isolated on an island raised in entire neutrality innately choose to solve disagreements peaceably, or would they kill over minor things? It would be interesting to see, but it would also be an unethical experiment.
As for moral justice, if I understand you right, it seems you are talking about wanting revenge for harms inflicted. As for being born with that sense, (and I'm thinking it thru as I type, so this is really off the cuff) it occurs to me that it might also be a learned response. Because if someone hurts you, but then apologizes profusely and perhaps hugs you and kisses you and tries to make up for it and doesn't do it again, you may be able to let go of it. But if you are repeatedly hurt, with no amends made, then you lose trust, and out of that loss of trust you seek retaliation. And the older you grow, the more you are able to rationally explore the feelings behind what you seek, and to weigh the possibility of forgiveness as substitute for "justice". Does that make sense?
The idea behind innate ideas, ideas that we are born with, has been around for centuries and philosophers still fight about it. Are we born with ideas or are we just a blank slate that needs filling in? Really I can't know to any degree of certainty but by the simple fact that every major moral philosophy, be it Kants or Utilitarianism (sp?) pretty much come to the same conclusion, though by different means, suggests that maybe morality isn’t brought about by random chance, needs, and desires, but by some higher order, and we can only make guesses as to what that higher order is.
"Would people isolated on an island raised in entire neutrality innately choose to solve disagreements peaceably, or would they kill over minor things? It would be interesting to see, but it would also be an unethical experiment."
Although I'm big on the whole innate ideas thing, don't forget that I said that we only are born with the desire to do good, not that we know what good is. In either case the will to survive is the strongest instinct we have, and would override any other instinct we have. I'd say that people would in fact kill each other over minor things thinking it would help them survive.
"And the older you grow, the more you are able to rationally explore the feelings behind what you seek, and to weigh the possibility of forgiveness as substitute for "justice". Does that make sense?"
Moral justice goes two ways, one way for the person who wrongs and one way for the person who does wrong. The person who is wrong will want moral justice, will want the person who wronged him to suffer = to his own suffering, but the greatest thing that person can do is forgive and not demand moral justice be paid. This is a great thing, but it wouldn't be the initial reaction, the initial reaction would be a desire for justice. for the person doing wrong, if he truly thinks he's done wrong (note only if he THINKS he's done wrong, he could have done nothing wrong and feel guilt and also could have done horrible things and feel none) that person will feel guilt, and that guilt will be taken away once he has succumbed to moral justice. Forgiveness sometimes isn't enough, esp. for something especially horrible.
Ever read the book "The Kite Runner"? Exhalent book by the way, but I'm talking about it because in the story one character betrays the other, knows he's done wrong, and goes the rest of his life suffering guilt. That guilt was only lifted once he suffered greatly as well and paid for his sin. That’s the best example I can think of. The idea of moral justice for me is still new, but when I think of it more I might write another blog on it. Come back tomorrow and maybe I'll have a nice blog about God that we can talk about.
Post a Comment