How to draw the line between good and bad

If I steal from the rich and feed to  the poor, is that good or is that bad? If I drive over the speed limit to get my sick child to the hospital, is that good or is that bad? What is good? And what is bad? What is morality, and do you, as a person, have morals? Morality is what society treats as right and  acceptable. They’re the standards of thoughts, behaviors, and actions that everyone in a group  agrees to follow so they can all live peacefully. When you define it like that, morality does sound like law. However, while the law is influenced by  morals, they’re not the same. Stealing is against the law. Whether you’re stealing from the rich or from the poor, stealing is a crime. However, a lot of people would consider stealing a fruit from a Mandir to save a beggar from dying of hunger moral. Driving over the speed limit is a crime, but when it could help save the life of the child in the backseat of your car, it becomes the most noble of actions. Trespassing is a crime, but when there’s a storm coming and you don’t have anywhere to go, hiding under the shade of someone’s porch will definitely not get you in society’s black book.

On the flip side, there are also some  things that are considered immoral but are not criminal. Cheating on a test is a crime, but cheating on a partner is not. However, both of them would most  likely be considered immoral. Breaking a promise is one of the most immoral things you can do. But unless it was a written agreement about a business contract, you normally  won’t get into trouble with the law for it. Although law and morality are different, they’re quite similar in many ways actually. Both morality and law are built  on the foundation of respect for all humans as well as autonomy of life, property, and beliefs. They’re also both there to guide the behaviors of people living in a community so everyone can live together in the most peaceful ways possible. Just that one is written, and  the other is usually unspoken. I wrote an entire essay about societal norms in society a few months back, and most of them are simply our moral obligations as members of that society. More often than not, the law expresses the morality of that time and place. Just a few years ago, it was illegal to drink alcohol almost anywhere in India. However, as morality shifted towards tolerance for people who enjoy it, so did the law. Now whether they did that for moral reasons or simply because they can tax it at a pretty high rate is a different discussion entirely, but anyways. As humans evolve and learn new things, our morals change. This is why morality isn’t stagnant. 

It evolves with time as people share their experiences and beliefs about the world. Think about issues like pre-marital  sex, same-sex relationships, abortion, marijuana use. These are all things that were considered immoral long ago. But today, society is beginning  to accept all of these as moral. We’ve learned to be tolerant of people regardless  of their personal beliefs or preferences. And while not everyone might agree to all of these things or practice it themselves, things seem to have flipped, and it’s  now considered immoral to criticize the people who choose to live these lifestyles. Throughout human history, morality tended to  have been tied to religious traditions. However, now more than ever, we’re moving to a place where morality is no longer tied to religion whatsoever. It’s more of what the “social norm” is and how you operate around that norm. We now recognize the need for secular morality that transcends people’s personal beliefs, and is instead seeking the good of the general public. However, there is one argument against this type of morality.

The idea of subjective morality. You see, there  have always been debates about whether morality is subjective or objective, usually in religious or philosophical spheres. People who believe that morality is objective often say that if morality becomes subjective, everyone can simply create their own morality,  and then we can never say they’re wrong about anything. Because who are we to say their own  definition of morality isn’t the right one? And while there is some truth in that, there still are of course many flaws in that argument. If morality is objective, there needs to be  substantial similarities in what every culture considers correct and acceptable, as well as  actions that are considered taboo universally. But it is almost impossible to find a moral issue that  every culture in the world agrees to, even murder. Think about Nazi Germany and how it was thought  of as moral to kill in that culture. Think about cultures that practice cannibalism, or still make human sacrifices to their deity, to this day. If even the most barbaric of actions aren’t considered barbaric in every culture, how can we possibly say that morality is objective?