Philosophy of Everything

Morality

Morality. The first thing to be said about morality is that it exists only in the imagination of men and women, not in nature or reason. It has no basis in objective reality but rather stems from our desires for self-preservation and social cohesion. This means we have a choice between two options: either morality is an illusion or it's real. I'll argue here that neither option makes sense. Moral behavior can't be an illusion because if you ask people why they behave as moral beings then their answers are always personal and therefore don't apply universally. In other words, there cannot be universal laws of right and wrong because every individual person believes his or her own actions are just while those of others are immoral. But this isn't true at all; everyone knows what constitutes good conduct and bad. We all agree on certain things like kindness, honesty, courage, etc., even when we disagree on how far these virtues should extend. For example, consider the following questions: Should one lie to save another? Should one kill someone who tries to harm him/her? Is it permissible to cheat on one's spouse? These are obviously matters of opinion and thus fall outside the purview of any objective standard.Second, although many people believe morality is an innate instinct or something written into our genes by Allah (God), such ideas aren't consistent with empirical evidence. Even if it were possible to prove that humans evolved from apes, which is still hotly debated today, that wouldn't make us more moral than chimps. After all, chimps do everything human children do plus they also beat each other up. Moreover, it's unlikely that evolution would produce a species that had a natural aversion to violence and theft since such traits could easily lead to extinction. And yet, despite being less intelligent than chimps, humans have somehow managed to survive and thrive. Therefore, we must conclude that morality was invented, not evolved. That doesn't mean it came from nowhere; it simply means it didn't come from nature or God. Rather, it emerged out of cultural conventions.So where did it come from? There are three possibilities. One possibility is that it comes from reason, i.e., "rationality." However, rationality alone can't explain why we behave morally. If anything, it suggests we act immorally since rationality is concerned with determining what is best for society or some abstract entity like liberty. Furthermore, most people acknowledge that in order to know whether something is right or wrong one needs to look beyond the immediate consequences and consider the long term effects. Yet, when asked to justify their actions they often claim their behavior is justified because it benefits themselves now without considering the potential negative repercussions later. Rationality can't account for this inconsistency.The second possibility is that morality comes from religion. Most religious people seem to think so. They say morality stems from divine commandments given by God to mankind. A prominent Muslim philosopher, Ibn Rushd (Averroes), argued against this idea back in the twelfth century. He claimed that if morality were derived from God then it would be impossible to distinguish between right and wrong since both are commanded by God. In other words, he concluded that there is no absolute law of goodness. As a result, he declared Islam to be irrational because its doctrine does not allow freedom of thought and speech. In fact, he insisted that free thinking and expression are necessary to develop sound judgment. On the contrary, according to Islamic tradition, Muslims have been ordered to remain silent during prayer unless they wish to receive blessings from God. So, even if one believes that Islam commands love and compassion towards fellow man, it seems to contradict itself.Similarly, Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ died for our sins. Thus, Christians believe salvation depends on belief in Christ's divinity. Consequently, anyone who rejects this notion is condemned to eternal damnation. But if your neighbor steals your money, killing him won't bring you closer to heaven. Similarly, if you refuse to forgive your wife's lover, you're going to hell. But if you accept the thief's apology and pardon the woman's infidelity, will you go to heaven? Obviously not! Then again, if you reject the thief's repentance and punish him instead, you risk being labeled as a tyrant. But if you let him off scot-free you risk losing status among your peers. In short, rejecting forgiveness is considered virtuous but forgiving is deemed sinful. To put it bluntly, Christian morality is inconsistent.Finally, the third possibility is that morality comes from culture. While this theory may appear to be the simplest, it's actually quite problematic. First, it assumes that the majority of people share the same values and standards of right and wrong. But history shows that cultures differ widely in terms of moral codes. For example, the Chinese were known for their cruelty to animals whereas the Greeks revered them. Today, Europeans tend to regard eating meat as normal and hunting wild game as a sport while Arabs consider it barbaric. Furthermore, if all societies are equally valid then why are there millions of religions across the world? Why do different groups worship completely contradictory gods? Finally, why do they all claim that theirs is the only true faith? Clearly, the answer is that each group has its own unique set of values and standards.In sum, none of the above theories can adequately explain why we behave morally. Morality is a product of culture and thus subject to change. This means we can choose to follow whatever moral code suits our current interests. Indeed, it's doubtful that any one moral system is superior to all others. In fact, it seems likely that every culture has a mixture of moral systems. An ideal society would have to strike a balance between conflicting principles.Another important point is that morality is relative. By this I mean that each culture defines what is good and evil differently. This implies that the concept of virtue varies greatly from one culture to another. Consider the case of cannibalism. Some tribes of Amazonian Indians eat human flesh. They see it as a delicacy and believe it makes them stronger. Other tribes consider it repulsive and condemn it as "barbaric." According to the latter view, the ultimate goal of life is to live well and enjoy pleasure. Eating human flesh is seen as wasteful and impure. The former tribe views it as nourishing and healthy. In short, both are right in their own way. Similarly, the practice of slavery is considered acceptable in some parts of Africa and deplorable in others. Again, both positions are correct.Furthermore, morality changes over time. When Columbus discovered America, he thought he'd found paradise. But after seeing the cruelty of the natives he changed his mind. Later, the Spanish conquistadors raped, tortured, and murdered thousands of Native Americans. Today, most American liberals don't think much of Columbus' conquest and admire the Spaniards for bringing civilization to the Americas. Similarly, Europeans admired the Mongols for conquering Asia until they learned of their brutality. Likewise, European explorers once regarded African cannibals as noble savages while today they call them barbarians. The list goes on.But perhaps the clearest proof that morality is relative is that it constantly shifts. Throughout history, the number of crimes considered immoral has increased dramatically. For example, homosexuality was legal in ancient Greece but not in Rome. At present, it's legalized almost everywhere. In contrast, cheating on one's spouse used to be frowned upon while nowadays it's common. What happened?

 I'll leave the answer to this question for the reader.