For thousands of years the nature of ethics and morality has been a argued by philosophers, theologists, and everyone in between. Theologists would credit religion and God for laying the guidelines for good and bad behavior, while philosophers would take an alternative road and investigate the fundamental characteristics that define moral behavior. I would not like to be excluded from the enormous list of people who find interest in this topic, so I will take the uncommon road and offer my take on the basic principles of morality.
While moral codes vary throughout the world, they can be divided into two categories:
1.Morals with regard to religion.
2.Morals with regard to society.
It is possible for both types of morality to exist in the same environments, for example: In America the majority of citizens have religious guidelines for their actions and behavior, but they are not necessarily laws or mandatory behavior. Conversely, an example of a single morality would be a Muslim nation, were religious guidelines dictate law and social behavior.
I will not discuss morality in relation to religion, due to its obvious origin in religious text. The concept here is to imagine that there were no religious text to provide moral guidelines and we were left with determining the nature of morality.
The morality of society:
In society, the concept of good morality can be defined as an absence of bad morality. This is due to the fact that one is not obligated to do good, or in other words it is not enforced, demanded, required, in any aspect of society, however a lack of bad behavior is required. Bad behavior in many forms is prohibited.
Also, the principles of good morals are subjective to the individual, and are not as universal as bad morality, and thus harder to define. If you wish to offer your definition, feel free to comment in that regard.
The four basic principles of immoral behavior.
These are the defining principles that an action or behavior must have in order to qualify as immoral.
1. One rational person
2. The action (or not acting with regard to obligation)of the rational person must, in some manner affect another.
3. The rational person must act intentionally
4. The affected must dislike the manner in which it was affected.
These four principles are then, influenced by two variables.
Two moral variables:
1. Consideration for the circumstances surrounding the action.
2. A common agreement on the dislike, like or indifference felt in regard to action and circumstances.
I am sure this sounds vague, lets clarify each principle so that there is no misunderstanding of what i mean.
Principle 1: One rational person.
I recently discussed this topic with a fellow blogger, who pointed out that if a tree falls on a person, the tree is not considered immoral. Therefore the two entities must be rational, able to think and understand their surroundings. Why do i keep saying entities instead of people?
Principle 2: The action of one rational person must, in some manner affect another.
For the most part its redundant to state this as a principle, due to the fact that almost everything you can physically "do" will affect someone. Yet it must be noted for the sake of eliminating exceptions: If your actions do not affect anyone surrounding you in any way, they cannot be immoral. (Religious morals are different, if you are by yourself and no one is affected, a divine entity is still aware of your action.) In the case of society, someone must be affected, this includes when they are affected by not acting when one has an obligation to another.
Principle 3: Did the rational person act intentionally?
An unintentional act needs some definition. It is the obligation of the individual to know or to try and learn how his or her actions will affect his or her surroundings. If such obligations are fulfilled, and the action still affects another in a way unintended, the action cannot be immoral.
Principle 4:Did the affected dislike the manner in which it was affected.
This principle is important. While many would state that morality has a direct or indirect correlation with harm or suffering. I do not agree. I would say that harm is a one factor that determines moral behavior, yet it is not a fundamental requirement. For example lying, nudity, using curse words: these are actions that do not always correlate with harm. I feel that immoral behavior is always disliked, yet the causes for dislike are subjective and hard (if not impossible) to define. Here are some examples of vague immorality: A behavior could be disliked because it might generate, or perpetuate a different immoral act.
A behavior might be disliked because it hinders the development of society.
Now the two variables:
Variable 1. Circumstance is very essential in determining bad behavior. To state that murder is always wrong would be incorrect. It is acceptable for self defense, national security, as well as many other possible scenarios. One must determine the circumstances surrounding the action in order to judge correctly.
Variable 1. This is the key to determining all that is right and wrong. There have been many who would say that an action is only good or bad when you perceive it that way. Its the "glass is half full" philosophy. I say the glass is half full only when the majority of society agrees that it is half full.
Every action must be weighed from the eyes of the doer and receiver. If my actions affect someone and i am pleased, i must ask would i be equally pleased if everyone acted in this manner? The answer to this question will give the action its moral definition.
In a way its a similar concept to the "golden rule". (do on to others as you would have done to yourself.)
I spoke with someone who had an objection this concept and offered this scenario to illustrate the contradictions of the golden rule:
If you walk into a shoe store, the store owner wants you to by a pair of shoes, he will be displeased if you leave empty handed. Yet you don't buy anything because his shoes are too expensive. If you where a store owner you would be displeased if he did not buy your shoes, yet if the owner was shopping he would want a deal too. What the customer wants and what the store owner wants conflict. In this case it is impossible to "do on to others as as you would have done to yourself." So which behavior is immoral not buying shoes or not lowering his prices?
The answer can be found in the second of the four principles.
Suppose the customer never went into the shoe store, financially this is the same for the owner as someone shopping and not buying, in either case he is not affected by the customer. The customer was simply not acting and there was no obligation to buy. Therefore not buying his shoes does not meet all four requirements found in immoral behavior. In fact neither position meets all of the required principles, and therefore cannot even be judged as moral or immoral.
If you apply anything labeled immoral in our society, i think you'll find that it meets my requirements. If you do find some error, please comment accordingly. The goal here is not to prove that I'm right, but to find a formula for determining morality.
For other interesting discussions on morality please visit http://www.wayofthemind.org/
