Let me make one point clear right at the beginning. There is no “pure”
morality in our society or in our hearts and minds. We all want to have
or create a pure state of morality but it’s just not possible as a human
race prone to error and emotions. We can and do build foundations on
principles or values that appear to be logical and rational in nature
and content but in all reality, may not apply to all situations in life.
They are not lasting, definitive or firm foundations. They are in
fact mere inspirational ideas, thoughts or actions based on personal
desires or outcomes. Flawed from the moment they are created, there is
no such thing as a perfect morality. There is no such existence of a
perfect moral value or legislative law in existence today in our world.
What may be rational or logical for some, may in fact be contrary to the
culture and practices of others.
Rather than attaining a point of
acknowledgement, we have to accept the fact we are really at a point of
departure. A departure from the ideal humanly inspired principle or
values that shapes our morality. So the question is, how do we construct
a pure philosophy of morality?
What laws of nature do we apply?
What laws of religion do we apply? What constitutional rights do we
forgo and still retain our freedoms? What rational or sense of
direction do we use? Is it the good for many versus the good of a few or
is it good versus evil and nothing falls in the middle?
The
reality is by virtue of being human, there is no perfect answer to such a
rule. There will always be a conflict between the laws of nature versus
the laws of freedom. Do we need a moral force? Who will enforce this
morality force; the police, the establishments, or the governments?
What in the name of anthropology, psychology, and sociology do we apply
and how much weight does that value carry in the enforcement realm?
Moral enforcement should not be based on non-scientific considerations
or values.
It should not be man-made but on the other hand, does
this power come from religions people worship and value as their means
of living the good word. Neither options are acceptable and we stand to
show there is no pure moral force nor is there a pure moral rule.
Do we include moral obligations or do we include human feelings? Does
this philosophy deny the fact that this may be the difference between
what people want and what people need? As I see it today, there is no
pure moral force or rule today and I don’t think it will ever be.
Society does not have the fairest or the most judicial means to weigh
the true nature of morality. What may be fair and impartial for others
may in fact be unfair and biased for others.
It comes down to what
people actually do versus what they actually feel. It defines the common
sense ideology of duty, honor, integrity, and other tangible and
intangible elements of human emotions and characteristics. How you
invoke these philosophies and make them law or rule is most
questionable.
More importantly, how do we inject morality as a
universal law when the universe does not have one rule or one constant
value among the human race? All said, it cannot be applied with a
universal law of reason as reasons differ in various cultures.
Nobody argues the fact that there has to be a binding force to enforce
the law. There have to be common agreement to determine particular norms
within a society and deal with them if they breach the common trust of
society.
However, how do we find a binding force that in inclusive
of all cultural factors and how do we make it universally binding. The
fact is we can only come to a partial agreement that morals are
universally applicable. This is weighed by the benefit to society rather
than a natural, religious or the right of freedom.
It has been
said human beings are rational beings. Far from perfect, a rational
being can be wrong as well as those acting irrational as it becomes an
inference or perception that conflicts with each other at a specific
moment in time.
Using the sign of the times as an example, we can
see fatal weaknesses in the rational approach when something external is
influencing the definitions of what are moral acts and what are
unlawful acts. If permitted to violate the rules by some and not of
others, where do we find peace of mind and an acceptable situation?
Is society trying to find laws or moral rules which turns into
something binding regardless of all natural or cultural factors? If
something is law then it must be universally binding to be considered a
pure law.
However, when you question this law, is it morally in tune
with the needs of society and their pursuit of justice? This can go on
and on but one thing is clear, human beings are not rational for the
status of being rational is defined by a political, religious or selfish
sense of value and approach.
