On Morality

I've decided to narrow down things a little and discuss some issues more deeply. Maybe that's the way? Chaos always accompanies me so excuse my jumping from one topic to another. Being in the middle of segregating various concepts I think it's a good opportunity to connect more valid ones to my primary idea. So please welcome warmly my first primitive philosophical achievement ! 

A discussion was brought up yesterday between my friend and me. Hard stuff. Morality issues. As I’m finding myself more and more confused about my morals, other’s morals, general notion even, I’ve got as always curious. It seems that my closest friends are afraid of my judgments! They believe that my understanding of good and bad is very categorical, inflexible, narrow-minded even. I won’t defend myself. I won’t avoid a problem either. I’ll start digging instead, cause it is simply unfair that they made me feel like fucking Spanish Inquisition. And how exactly should I react on the argument that “we are what we are and I don’t feel bad at all about what I’m doing, cause I know that others do it too.” So… following this thought, if a bunch of our common friends agree that there’s nothing wrong in shitting on a street, we would automatically do it cause for now on it is acceptable and even well-seen? Bizzare…

Finally, I’ve been warned ! “Stop imposing your morality on others!” Does it mean that there’s more than only one morality, in general sense I mean? I always thought that there’s one common morality for certain society, created by ages of tradition, culture, religion, philosophy and collective conscience. However, in my naïve understanding, each person has his own sense of morality which could more or less resemble the BIG one, or could be a bit, a little, very or totally different and wrong (I’m simplifying on purpose, cause philosophical arguments look better on Wikipedia). If there are more moralities, and everything bases on personal judgment influenced by problematic rationalization and similar cases of behavior in our closest environment, does morality even exists? 

Let’s see …

“People resemble their times more than they resemble their parents”

Oh yeah ?!  Shallow, completely  superficial ancient saying. There’s nothing so simple any more after Freud ! I can agree on fifty-fifty, and no more no more ! (irony included)  
 

…While the Builders’ Generation are most influenced by authority figures and Boomers

make decisions based on data and facts, post-modern youth are more likely to make a

decision based on the influence of their own peers. Our research has further confirmed

that the biggest factor determining the choice a teenager will make is the experiences of

their core group of 3 to 8 friends. Rather than making independent decisions based on

core values, they live in a culture encouraging them to embrace community values, and to

reach consensus.

Understanding Generation Y

Mark McCrindle

Ho ho ho! Why I’m not surprised? But without a proper definitions we won't go far ! 

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") has three principal meanings.

In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct or belief concerning matters of what is moral or immoral (these words are commonly misplaced with right or wrong which are words of logic not morality). In its descriptive use, morals are arbitrarily and subjectively created by society, philosophy, religion, and/or individual conscience

In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of belief and conduct which would be preferred by the sane "moral" person, under specified conditions. In this "definitive" sense, claims are made such as "Killing is immoral." While descriptive morality would not necessarily disagree that killing is immoral, it would prefer to say, "Many believe that killing is immoral." – moral skepticism

In its third usage, 'morality' is synonymous with ethics. Ethics seeks to address questions such as how a moral outcome can be achieved in a specific situation (applied ethics), how moral values should be determined (normative ethics), what morals people actually abide by (descriptive ethics), what the fundamental nature of ethics or morality is, including whether it has any objective justification (meta-ethics), and how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is (moral psychology).

Morality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 



 According to this brief explanation I wasn't so wrong after all. I wasn't right either. Morals are arbitrarily created by societies and by all the influential forces, institutions, ideas characteristic for them. One point for me! On the other hand, we have this individualistic approach which is, more or less directly, a result of one’s beliefs and specific milieu conditions. Aha! Second point for me for such an outstanding observation! On the third hand (for the continuation’s of this thought sake, let’s assume that we have 3 hands), there’s ethics, so super meta-approach which simply cannot be applied into the reality, cause it is strictly combined with academic, completely irrelevant for living, crap. We have this exception here called applied ethics, but we won’t go this road this time(joke included)...

Now please check out this short movie:  

Richard Dawkins on Morality

So there it is. Genetic explanation which in a way lowers the meaning of religion and conscious. Seams realistic to me, but still how should we treat the notion of morality? The notion of Moral Systems seams a lot more convincing. Moral systems created by societies, basing on altruistic genes telling us what’s wrong and what’s right for our community. So much easier to understand, unless of course we don’t mention today individualism, which’s started to be strongly cultivated in Western realities lately. If we dig deeper into this idea, we could come out with the conclusion that above uncontrollable biological factors each person needs A REASON to behave morally. It could be a strong sense of common moral system, but it could be also everything else, like for example a strong need of acceptance in chosen environment. In this case morals become a result of personal criteria, which of course are infected by general moral system, but in the same time this system is being changed continuously by individual experiences.

Our background, religion, traditions, family etc., in opposition to current circumstances (media, globalization, term of success etc.) could cause, and probably are causing severe moral crisis among so-called “millennial generation”. At least those factors don’t stay neutral.   

Let’s sum it up and make a point!  

My probably very childish perspective for the moment:

 

Remember my mapping task? What’s above is my original, general graph layered with today ideas concerning morality. As we can see I’m distinguishing notion of morality as a complete abstraction, in the same time emphasizing a sense of morality (one's interpretation of morality). Directions of influences are rather random, but they need to be taken under the consideration. Codes of conduct as a result of “socially respected morality” are also an important factor. By social contract I don’t mean an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed, but rather an unwritten agreement in certain community concerning socially accepted and wanted behaviors.

 Does it make any sense?