''Questioning whether one is moral or not is never as feasible as questioning what morals are those on which he lies.''
Introduction and Thesis Statement
There are no universal,
absolute, or even true morals – good and evil – they are an illusion. Having a
person who is envisioned as good in society killed is no different than having
the same deed done to a snake. It is the society that labels the first deed as
evil and the second one as good or at least significantly fine. As the first
one doesn’t fit their society’s standards, while the other one does. In fact,
for a better world, morals must be stressed as a set of norms that objectively serve
human beings peculiarly – unexceptionally – and the environment in general.
Morals are not to be sacred nor are they to be a result of cultural,
ideological, religious and authoritarian premises. This essay is to cement the
preceding statement with convenient pieces of evidence.
Is it all about Definition?
Questioning whether
one is moral or not is never as feasible as questioning
what morals are those on which he lies. Morals may be generally defined as
standards of behaviour. And, here comes the essence of the discussion—what
standards our behaviour should follow? Why are they to be followed? Can we
intuitively know those standards? Initially, those norms and the way they are
chosen shape the definition of morality in accordance with the individual’s
ideological background. A religious will define morals as what has been
mentioned in his religious text as good. And, potentially, endorses that they
are intuitive. Others may come to define morals in terms of their ideology within
a utopian framework. Accordingly, we shall
observe that morals depend on how they are envisioned, and thus defined as.
From an intuitive perspective, Kant (1797, 1785) generated a duty-oriented ethical formula. This alludes to the fact that if a certain behaviour is considered a duty, it must be moral. Consequently, moral things are things that must be done for no reason, but for being obligatory within a universal intuitive law. In other words, Kant claims that morals are intuitive and are intrinsically known. They are behaviours done for no will to be rewarded or have anything in return. To illustrate, Kant provides three maxims which one’s behaviour should meet, so that it may be moral; it must be possible to be universalised, considering others as ends not means, and being within the framework of that given society in which it occurs.
In contrast, utilitarianism
led by J. Stuart Mill imparts a more comprehensive and tangible approach in his
book Utilitarianism (1861). Pointedly, Mill asserts that morals are a mere
production of utility. That is to say, something is moral only if it is
conducive to as wide as possible variety of people’s happiness. Mill,
additionally, states that values, virtues, and moral societal principles are to
be analysed with utilitarian lenses. This implies that if any cultural moral
norm is contrastive to people’s utility, it must be reconsidered, and thus
removed or replaced by an optimal one. Subsequently, laws are equal to morals
as both of them are the outcome of the same factor, which is utilitarianism. Similarly,
J. Bentham (1789) postulates that morality depends on a certain behaviour’s associated
result, if it is good, then the behaviour is moral, if the contradictory, it is
clearly immoral.
Objectively, how Morals Are to be Envisioned?
After having two
main views in this perspective exposed, it might be righteous – to some extent
– to affirm that Mill and Bentham’s approach is way more objective than Kant’s.
The latter declares that morals are intuitive and can be measured by oneself,
and if found to be righteous and able to be universalised, this means that they
are morally right. However, if John sees religion or ideology ‘’X’’ under which
he was raised as perfectly right, he would, consequently, find it a virtue to
universalise it in any way possible. In fact, virtues or morally right
behaviours are the product of each person’s glasses that are by turn constituting
a set of instructed assumptions.
Most of those behaviours that might be
popularly agreed on as moral are based on ancient utilitarian criteria, or mere
cultural myths that sought to serve a certain class in a certain epoch. Hegemony
currently and equitably in the past had its own impact in shaping people’s moral
background. Thereafter, that ground shaped by nurture was appealed to be
intuitive and natural and so it was believed publicly. On the other hand, utilitarianism
as was coined by Reseau and his colleagues as ‘’The Social Contract’’ had the
lion´s share of shaping people´s claimed intuitive morals. This indicates the
growth of human consciousness and the construction of its threshold towards gossiping
that one’s utilitarian zone may be widened when collaborating with others. That
one is today young, doing what suits him even if it hurts others, later on, he
is an old Man being humiliated by today’s strong young Men and so on. Thus,
wasn’t it optimal to spread out virtues that can serve one today as it will do tomorrow?
—Actions that may today be done by John to benefit Jacob, and tomorrow by Jacob’s
son to benefit John.
Accordingly, no
ideologies are needed to determine morals or to make someone moral. Morality is
the utilitarian need to spread virtue which originated from Man’s need to maintain
staidness. Ideologies – namely ancient ones – are using their stagnant moral
basis to preserve the services they sought to provide to the class they were
intended to serve at first, if not, they may be unintentionally freezing time in
that old utilitarian epoch’s conditions with which they were proportionally generated.
But, how can we Establish a Strong Objective Utilitarian Moral Ground?
As preceding, we
are unable to know by intuition what is morally right, or in other words, what
is the common good and what is not, hence, an objective tool must show up. That
is science in its diverse fields. It is the only objective and tangible manner that
can reveal the true face of things. To illustrate, if product ‘’X’’ is proposed
to be legalised, it must be analysed through all the related fields of natural
sciences and then social ones, until it is made sure that it doesn’t breach the
common good (which is again determined by the convenient fields of science).
But why did I generate a relation between legalisation and morals, laws and
virtues? This is because morals are laws, they are just more induced and
habitual. As can be objectively deduced, killing is immoral, so as it is illegal.
If there was ever a contradiction between morals and laws, it must portray a
lack of objective verification of one of them; either those morals were not scientifically
shaped or those laws weren’t.
Conclusion & Recommendations
Pointedly, morals are not intuitive, nor are they related to any divine sources. Morals are encrypted laws in Man’s social background and with a smaller degree in his nature. It is also worth hinting that morals in their objective form should be adaptive. That’s why, whenever they are being glorified and made permanent, they directly conduce an out-timed utilitarian set of norms. Some, on the other hand, may claim that without having norms and morals sacred and glorified, they will subsequently become bankrupt. Verily, Man’s brain has already gossiped about the chaos that would occur with no morals – social standards – governing the environment in which he lives. Indeed, it is high time to think of morals rationally, as a means to sustain society, and have their sacred form taken off.
Bibliography
Bentham, J. (1843). “The” works of Jeremy Bentham: Memoirs Of Bentham; Including Autobiographical Conversations And Correspondence. Chap. XXIII. - XXVI. ; Appendix To The Memoirs ; An Analytical Index To The Works And To The Memoirs And Correspondence. 11.
Mill, J. S. (1974). Collected works of John Stuart Mill. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA00348026
Nietzsche, F. (1887). On the Genealogy of Morals. Penguin UK.
Rousseau, J. (1762). The social contract. Wordsworth Editions.
Rousseau, J. (1950). The social contract,: And Discourses. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA04614198