|
|
|
|
|
The meaning of morality then, is the achievement of what is best for the life of each of us as individuals. But this needs to be clarified. As a system of guidance for life, the concept of morality could be, and has been, expanded to include the obtaining of whatever we happen to value most. This, however, destroys the concept, and results in what I would call "moralities of death."
Certainly religious suicide bombers who kill themselves and innocent people have gone far astray from this original premise of life as the basis of morality. They value some beliefs higher than their own or other's lives. Does using the idea of good and evil even make any sense when we get too far from the goal of preserving and protecting life? No. It makes more sense to leave "life" at the center of our moral systems.
However, what we can so is work on expanding our conception of "life," and what "my life" means. What is life? Whose lives (beside our own) should our moralities protect, and in what ways? Should one's life be protected at any cost, or should a certain kind or quality of life be the ultimate goal and value? Exploring these questions might lead to a more useful morality.
What about love for others? What about generosity, productiveness, joy and peace of mind? How do these fit into morality? How do we balance these lesser - but very important values - when they come into conflict in our moral choices? What about when different individuals have conflicts in their various choices and moral beliefs. How do we resolve these?
|
Authors Note: These pages are speculation, an attempt to look at things in new ways. My own experience (and certainly that of others) tells me there is a "natural morality" which is experienced as our "conscience." In other words, we are born with a sort of "moral compass," which is based on compassion. It extends even to other life forms (we feel it is wrong to abuse an animal, for example). With the few exceptions, this is universal in humans. But it's not necessary to hypothesize an "intelligent designer" to recognize this. It is also easy to see that it is in our own self interest to "do the right thing." Being cruel, unjust or otherwise immoral does not give people anything of real value. Experience shows us this, as do the latest scientific studies of happiness levels in those who practice the conscious development of compassion. On this page I'm suggesting that morality is natural and of real value to the individual, and so does not require the dangerous concept of alruism. |
Some will object, claiming for example that they don't benefit personally when giving food to a starving person, and yet they feel this must be a "good" thing to do. Well, it probably is a good thing. But perhaps because the giving person has a limited understanding of what is good for himself, he feels the need to justify his generosity by reference to some altuistic moral code - or to foist that code on others under the unspoken assumption that they would not otherwise want to help.
But doesn't it actually seem more than a little cynical to claim that we get nothing from helping others? An enlightened selfishness allows for the value of others to us, and certainly makes it possible to enjoy helping them. Therefore we benefit at least in the sense of feeling better. It is actually rare to find people who don't enjoy helping others in many contexts. Enjoyment is certainly a selfish motivation, and so naturally people like the idea that we "should" help others, because they have been trained to think that motives which are self-interested are somehow bad.
The explanation and story in the first part of this essay show how morality could have developed in our past. This part clarifies the meaning of morality from that perspective. Next we will look look at how basic selfishness (or self interest) in a baby develops into more enlightened moral ideas.
Continued here: Moral Development