On Morality

"Do you think being gay is a sin? Is it a choice? Suicide, is that bad? It helps with pain and I was a chirstian for 15years but nothing benifited and my life was still miserable and pathetic, what then?" -Anonymous

This series of questions was posted a little while back on my Formspring account. As I consider the answers, I realize that there is an underlying concept that I have to first address, a concept I began to ponder while studying Philosophy and Ethics this past semester at college.

I used to be plagued by the thought of whether or not there was some universal form of morality. The moral codes by which people live vary from culture to culture and time period to time period. Morality seems then to be a social construct, some artifice of mankind created to keep people in line. This, however, has never felt wholly true. When I commit a wrongdoing, when I feel that pang of guilt, it seems to come from deep within me, and not from some echo of my mother’s or minister’s voice in my head. Would a child raised without human contact have a sense of morality? No, but nor would that child have the capability of speech or higher thought, those things which we consider key elements of our humanity. Yes, we learn morality from our culture, but there is something as universally human about it as speech and higher thought.

So what is that universality of morals? What remains absolute throughout time, place, and culture? I think it is the underlying purpose, or goal, of morality.

That purpose is the immediate and long-term survival and thriving of humankind.

Every culture has worked towards this, and every moral system I have ever been exposed to or heard of has believed itself to be working towards this end. Those cases of immoral actions or codes of those who believed themselves to be “good” can be seen as instances in which there was a lack or error in knowledge or perspective. Consider that in the most heinous cases of mass-murder and genocide, the attackers first removed the victims from their concept of humankind; and in those cultures which practiced human sacrifice or other activities recognized in the modern world as supremely immoral, those actions were performed from a belief that they were necessary for the survival or thriving of humankind itself. So, while I may reject the particular “moral” codes or behaviors of others, I recognize an underlying universality which supports in my own life the idea that morality is something more than just a social construct. Additionally, we can see both that there is an absolute “right” and “wrong” (that which most or least fulfills the above-stated purpose) and that that which is most morally right or wrong can change through time and environment (as the conditions for the survival and thriving of mankind change).

For these reasons, when I am struck in life with a challenging moral dilemma or question I ponder how the options for acting in that situation affect the immediate and long-term survival and thriving of humankind. Survival is easy enough to measure, but thriving is clearly a different challenge. Just what it is I mean by “thriving” is somewhat difficult to describe, as it relates to that element of our humanity which is largely ineffable. I feel, however, that the greatest evidence of mankind thriving is participation in the arts. When people are not just surviving, but creating and observing art – be it painting, literature, performance, or some other form – then we can be confident they are thriving.

But why does it even matter? Following a moral code or instruction from some organization or teacher can be dangerous – all we have to do is consider how many people have performed heinous deeds under the belief that they were following orders from the morally just to see the value in finding a system of independent evaluation. With this understanding of the underlying and universal purpose of morality, we can then examine any issue, and with the proper knowledge and perspective arrive at the most truly just and moral conclusion.