Is it good to be a highly moral person?
We are all though that we should be highly moral and that we should follow legal rules and socially acceptable behavior. This attitude comes so naturally to us that we rarely even stop and think about it for a moment.
But hey, take a look at this example. You’re alone in a middle of a desert, your vehicle broke (or your camel died, poor camel) and you don’t have enough water to reach the nearest settlement or oasis on foot. Luckily, you meet a man that has more than enough water for both of you and you ask him nicely to give or sell you some of his water. Alas, he refuses decisively and completely ignores you afterward, going his way. Knowing that virtually no one ever passes through that deserts, you basically have to choose between PHYSICALLY ATTACKING that man and STEALING HIS PROPERTY or dying from thirst while sunbathing on a hot sand. What would you do?
Sure, we can justify our wrongdoing from the situation above by telling ourselves that the man we attacked and robbed was selfish, cruel, horrible etc. But what about this: you have an opportunity to kill a complete stranger and steal his $1,000,000 in a way that you know that you will never get caught. What would you do? You wouldn’t kill him because you have no way to justify it? Why do you need a justification?
Your need to justify your wrongdoings is naturally inherited because if our conscience wouldn’t naturally prevent us from conducting unjustified wrongful actions, our society would very soon go to hell as we would all selfishly destroy each other in a thousand ways.
Thus, being a person with a high conscience is definitely good for our society, since conscience is a natural force helping our society to advance together without excessively destructive internal rivalry. On the other hand, high conscience is sometimes not too beneficial for ourselves as individuals. For ourselves as individuals, maybe it would be much more useful to always follow the simple cost/benefit logic without thinking about moral issues. Luckily for all of us together, we (or at least most of us) can't do that.
- What do you think about the pros and cons of high morality and conscience for the human society and a human individual?
If you liked this post then you will also probably like my post about human life worth found here: https://steemit.com/life/@lifenbeauty/how-valuable-is-a-human-life-are-we-really-all-worth-the-same
Have a wonderful day, week, and life!
Hi @lifenbeauty it seems to me that you equate "high moral" having some intrinsic value instead of having a contextual value. For instance in our western society if you kill someone that could be considered low moral and lead you to jail, or can be high moral, if that was sanctioned by the government during war, and killing another human being could give the status of an hero. So the same action, killing another human being can have different meaning, and be valued, accordingly to situational factors. This leads to another conclusion is that moral is dependent of external factors like culture or society, and as such is a learned system of values. Moreover, moral is not equated with consciousness, as consciousness is the background where mind expresses itself into being.
On the other hand, if you replace the word moral for ethics, that would have a completely different outcome, as ethics, are intrinsic values of the individual and are not imposed or defined by culture, and they are not contextual. In any culture or society, every knows that killing others is wrong, no matter what the culture says. The proof of this is the amount of traumatized veterans that have psychological scars not due to have been wounded in combat but to have committed acts that although approved by society and government, were against their consciousness as human beings - their ethics.
The bottom line for me it that ethics are more important than morals.
Hi @awkedev, thanks for the thoughtful feedback.
Yes, I have totally missed to note that morale is dependent on external factors like culture and society. What I was referring to by "being a highly moral person" is "acting in a way that is regarded as highly moral in your culture and society".
Thanks for differentiating between moral, conscience, and ethics.
Wikipedia definitions state that:
"Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment that assists in distinguishing right from wrong".
"Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct."
According to you, what term should be used to express our intrinsic view on what should be regarded as "highly moral" in a society - "conscience" or "ethics"? I was closer to "conscience", but it seems that it's "ethics" after all.
Very meaningful example with war veterans, clearly proves the point!
hi @lifenbeauty. The desert/water dilemma could be an exam question. I think the second question about getting away with stealing a million is straight out of a Wall Street job application form.
My motto is "You never go wrong by doing the right thing"
Hello @swissclive.
"The desert/water dilemma could be an exam question." - I'm glad you like it! : )
"I think the second question about getting away with stealing a million is straight out of a Wall Street job application form." - I presumed that we would (almost) all do the right thing, but I wondered why? I love your motto and I'm going along the same road, but again, what interests me is why is it the right road for us as individuals. : )
Cheers!
High morality kills individuals to the benefit of society and no morality kills society to the benefit of individuals.
Superbly said, thank you! :D
;-)
Completely agree with @awakedev up there.
I think all people, absolutely all, are good and bad depending on the circumstances, curious to put the image of Heisenberg, why Breaking Bad is exactly that, in fact, Bryan Cranstron makes an excellent explanation.
The culture of a society is based exactly on labeling things as good or bad, and making customs, the laws were created precisely from the attitude and culture of the people, if in X place they considered that having a dog was bad, then they created a law that prohibited people from having dogs.
That is why multiculturalism ends up breaking all laws, because you have a social disagreement where there is no general consensus that it is good and that it is bad.
A person may be acting in a way that he considers morally correct, while others think his attitude is deplorable. Morality is actually a fiction, but a necessary fiction to be able to coexist in society. You said that people should always think about the cost / benefit, I think that is the attitude that all people have always, in another publication of yours we were talking about exactly how people seek their own benefit without true altruism. I think that in the particular case that you described, all the people would take the water by force, because they would be responding to a basic need.
No doubt there were many things left to add, but I do not want to dwell here and make a pamphlet. In any case, it seemed to me an excellent publication and of enough quality, like all yours that I have seen so far. Greetings.
Hi @vieira,
I like what Cranstron said, "you always have to try to find humanity in a man", I always like to hear statements that remind of positive views. I agree with you, Cranstron and @awkedev that circumstances and culture play a huge part in person's ethics and the eventual breaking of those ethics.
"A person may be acting in a way that he considers morally correct, while others think his attitude is deplorable." - In the article, I was referring to acting in a way that that the person considers morally correct, but I failed to explain that very well.
"You said that people should always think about the cost / benefit, I think that is the attitude that all people have always, in another publication of yours we were talking about exactly how people seek their own benefit without true altruism." - One of the topics that interest me a lot is how to make a balance between personal gains and altruism. I think we all want and need both. But the philosophy behind these needs and their balance tickles my mind.
Thanks a lot for the thoughtful comment, I'm very glad I've already found Steemians who find my thoughts engaging and make an effort to improve and expand them.
Cheers!
Congratulations @lifenbeauty! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCongratulations @lifenbeauty! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPThis is a thinker. I never put energy into wondering why we needed to justify actions. I'm glad we do this, but I also see how we can create false narratives that are more harmful than beneficial in decision making. Hmm. 50/50 for me, I guess.
Thanks, I'm all about thinking. : )
50/50 - good for us as a part of the society, bad for us as individuals. : )
In a sense it’s almost comparing apples to oranges. If it’s a life or death situation you must survive (although you wouldn’t have to kill the water bearer, only knock him out and take what you need).
You don’t need to steal the million to survive ( possibly?). Food for thought either way.
Thanks for the comment! Please remember that surviving is not a must, some people choose to die rather than betray, or to sacrifice their life for someone else's, for example. Cheers! : )
That first image is deep af
Thanks, I really like it too! : )