Morality, as the fundamental framework that governs the decision-making mechanisms within the individual, has an enormous effect upon the choices and outcomes, both general and specific, that he undertakes and undergoes. More specifically, distinguishing between right and wrong establishes a basis that provides guidance in navigation through more complex issues. Rational analysis shows that morality is developed through environmental stimuli, both external and internal, and thus is most definitely learned. Moreover, the belief that morality is innate is, in my opinion, no more than a common misconception justified only by sentimentality.
Morality, as the supreme commander of the human guilt complex, which gives shape to the substance of conscience, is completely grounded in thought. However, thought exists as an element of both the conscious and subconscious. The inevitable unconscious agreement to reciprocity, the belief that symbiosis of mutualism would be most beneficial to both parties, develops over time from experience, and is the essential guiding force driving morality. Enduring bitter hardships that naturally develop in life ensures hatred towards suffering, creating the genuine hope that this same fate will not befall others. This causes concern for others, exemplified by considerable considerations of the desires of the receiving party, reinforcing the adherence to mutualism. In describing this continual, involuntary task of emulating the train of thoughts and wishes of another being, we have thus illuminated the existence of our sympathetic subconsciousness, often referred to as empathy. Morality emanates entirely from this sympathetic subconsciousness. The important note is our having demonstrated through careful analysis that empathy is grounded entirely in thought. A challenge to this theory often originates from the notion that some actions, particularly those with relation to morality, are entirely emotional in nature, and thus performed impulsively. This viewpoint would then subsequently argue that as such, morality is an intrinsic property of a human. Such a perspective neglects an important point in that emotion itself is rooted in thought, being the result of a large accumulation of mainly subconscious thought over time. The contention that morality has existed as an emotion since birth amounts to a revisionism, employing as its primary means of justification current emotions, which as presently addressed, are accumulations of thought-experiences. Morality is thus a transposition of thought.
To be innate, morality should demonstrate signs of inheritance in that the quality must be passed onward from one generation to the next. Morality indeed does exhibit such properties. This is but an illusion. Morality only appears to be of an inherent nature since moral societies, directed by the principle of mutualism, prevent self-destruction and allow its values the ability to perpetuate by means of education of the next generation. In weaving through time without breakage, morality provides illusions of inheritance.
Some advocates that morality is innate make the claim that morality has a nature similar to the five senses. As the senses are absolute and generally consistent through all, this assertion implies the same to hold true for morality. Evidently, this is not the case. Morality is at least partly based upon personal experiences, as previously described. They vary at least slightly. Of course, an advocate of innate morality could to this, still then counterclaim that, like a genetic trait, morality is different in specific information but conforming in class of information, such that the property itself remains intrinsic and not developed. Such a possibility requires the existence of several varieties of morality, a specific version featured by each individual. Morality does not appear this type of characteristic. It is not a classification within a set. As such, a more plausible explanation resides in the development of morality from personal dispositions. In summation, individual morals cumulate into a world of moral relativism, where moral standards are not absolute, and thus cannot be innate. That is, individual beliefs are the essential influences in constructing moral standards. Different values convert into different morals. The common belief that killing others constitutes a violation of morals arises from a common fear of death in the public. In other areas, one student might enjoy homework while homework might be a source of contempt for another. In this case, the two would fundamentally disagree to the ethicalness of assignment of homework. As demonstrated, the philosophies whereby an individual operate determine his eventual formulation of his moral standards. Morals appear absolute only when the background philosophical agreement is unanimous in a majority. That morality is relative rather than absolute provides evidence furthering the position that morality is entirely learned.
With these conclusions, the discussion has pointed our efforts into a new direction. Discussing morality should take on a lower order of precedence than discussing personal ideals, for personal ideals unlock morality. Absolute standards to morality are often employed manipulatively as a dangerous means of invoking closure in provocative debate over grey issues. They whom attempt to frame gray into an absolute juxtaposition of black and white are the manipulators, for by doing so, they too often neglect the root causes involved and focus only upon the effects, that is, morality. The intelligent must not be drawn into this delusional trap.
No comments:
Post a Comment