Morality

Cutting a ten-pound note in half to pay some £5 exemplifies the way we sometimes think of things in various areas of life. They make sense, they seem logical but there is a flaw. A fundamental flaw. A £10 note can't be split like that in practice. We can be manipulated by these seemingly rational ideas that make sense to some degree but don't stand up to scrutiny. It goes further than that. We embolden ourselves by changing our wording to reinforce what we are saying. Instead of saying that in my opinion this is good and that is bad, we say we say something is morally good, or morally bad.

Everything that is said to be ethically correct, morally right or wrong, is in fact just someone's opinion being expressed. They may have a lot of people agreeing with them. There may be some form of consensus, with a large percentage of the populace also believing the same. Nevertheless, not everyone agrees, besides opinion shifts. Homosexuality was regarded as a moral sin in the past. It still is in many parts of the world. The main change is our tolerance towards it. We may still think it is repulsive, but no longer condemn it in the same was as we once did. Thus, our moral values change over time. Our opinions change.

Money can be created out of thin air. Coins and notes are tokens that represent money we govern. Money is now completely abstract, there is no physical money. Why do I mention this? Money is useful even though it doesn't exist. It enables us to trade easily. Morality has it uses too, despite not being concrete. Our sense of morality can give us confidence in our actions. It can guide us. It might prevent us from doing 'bad' things to others. It can be the inhibitor; its immoral so I won't do it. Or I feel I have a moral duty to do something about what I see going on.

We each create a set of moral codes. Some may have none at all, others a long long list with many intricate details. It is our own personal construct. We each devise a unique set of rights and wrongs. No two people share the exact same list and most significantly, no moral code is agreed upon by absolutely everyone. Some forms of moral behaviour are adopted by a lot more people than others. Some moral codes are considered more important too.

Some have tried to think of one rule, one moral stance that might be universally agreed upon. The more heinous the act, the greater the number of those that might consider it to be wrong, immoral. It is as if we need a starting point to then build upon. Alas, no one seems to be able to make a judgement which all people will agree with. Circumstance and the context are taken into account. There is always a few that will find that even the most troubling action can have a justification.

As each day passes we adjust our list of moral codes. We add new ones to the list and demote others. Those that travel to see how other cultures thrive have their morality and ethics tested the most. Many begin to see things a little differently. They begin to question what they had firmly held to be true and proper. Many change their perspective on things and realise that these moral codes, these manners that they have been accustomed to, might not need to be so rigorously enforced.

In times of war, people can quickly cast aside their personal moral codes. We can be taught to kill and maim in the arena of conflict. The notion of do no harm to anyone is left far behind. We are much more likely to do something horrid if under the command of those we judge to be in authority. People are more inclined to do terrible things to others if we are told to do so. Responsibility is deferred to those in charge.

Steal to save a life

Thou shalt not take without the owner's permission, unless it is to save a sick and dying person. What is the harm? we ask. They have plenty, and we are without. We could gauge that a pharmacy has plenty of stock and therefore your theft will make very little difference. A big gain for your patient, a small loss to the shop owner. Will another ill individual go without? Will the chemist cease trading as the thefts become too frequent thereby leaving a community bereft of a fine local service? One way or another a theft deprives others. Less tax is collected, and less cash will become available to be distributed. We have a greater tendency to care for ourselves and those we like the most. Our theft yields a positive result for our clan. As each clan gets in on the act, mayhem ensues. More and more miss out and all find life a bigger struggle.

A one-off crime to save a life may seem 'get-away-withable'. However, there is the slippery slope. First stealing to definitively save a life. Then stealing something to assist someone who is ill but not in a life-threatening way. All the way down through, not feeling good and a tablet is an ideal pick me up, followed by simply stealing an item to boost one's ego. Our moral code has a justifier linked to an action. We might only steal if it is to save a life because we class any damage done as small in relation to the positive outcome. To watch someone die in front of you, with a cure so temptingly close by is hard to bear. Some may even say it is immoral to not steal and ensure a life is saved.

I want to present a good reason to state clearly why a theft to save a life is immoral, but I can't. One person gains, another loses.

Some societies will put things in place, community funded, to reduce the requirement to steal. In other places the tenth person that breaks into the shop gets clubbed to death by the store owner.

The answer to the question of whether it is right or wrong to steal to save a life is not found in the idea that things are either moral or immoral. Morality is an illusion. There is a cause and effect. The shop gets broken into and the shopkeeper will either let it be, take measures to track down the culprits or take steps to make it harder for the next person. We adjust according to what we want to achieve. Morality is like money, a nothing entity, all in our mind. Morality is data and money is a number that is represented somehow in a banks tally. We like the convenience of money and similarly like having a set of moral registers in our memory.

Saying that morality is wispy is not to say that we don't care for others, quite the contrary. We understand another person's desire to be unharmed. Most can see that some actions are nasty, hurtful and painful. A trip to the dentist can involve some painful, nasty treatments, but it is unlikely that we view it with any sense of morality. A father sped up on a ski run, intentionally, so that he could slide into his son and knock him over. The son was bruised and battered. The bigger picture showed that this action prevented the son from flying off into a steep ravine. Commentators can say that whipping someone that is tied up is an immoral despicable act. Yet, some pay good money to have this done to them. They enjoy it.

Is it immoral to be struck by lightning? We can be hit by nature, by a falling rock, or swept away by a tsunami, none of which seem to involve morality. When someone hits you, stabs you, drives recklessly over you or drops a nuclear bomb above your head, morality rears up. An "act of god" seems different to an action by a human being. The seemingly deliberate violence can have a random element. A glitch in someone's thought processes can be a cause of an outburst. Premeditation is governed by chaotic events inside and out. We think there is a difference between the morality of being hit by lightning versus being hit by an angry person.

Some accumulate money, some fabricate ethical standards by which they live their life. And lots like to be the arbiter of what is morally acceptable and what is abhorrent. As for hypocrisy, well it all depends on who is dishing out the piety.

If you replace morality with preferences then you can relate to the differences we each have in regard to what we think is right or wrong, good or bad and helpful or evil. We might prefer to see someone steal to save a life than have everyone be a law-abiding citizen in this instance. Our morality is nothing more than an opinion. Some will think something is fair, others disagree.

In some people's opinion, it was morally outrageous to drop an atomic bomb overhead hundreds of thousands of people. In the opinion of others, it was a necessary act to end the war. It was claimed that it saved many hundreds of thousands of lives. They were sacrificed to sabe many more. Our opinion can be swayed by the who, who was saved, our soldiers or theirs, or both.

There never has nor ever will be a universal code of ethics despite what certain books may proclaim. Mortality and opinion can be interchanged to make us understand it better. Your personal construct, your beliefs of what is right and wrong, change and depend upon events. 'Doing good' depends on the point of view. What seems beneficial for one person may have negative consequences for others. You could argue that there is no such thing as morality, but we struggle to exist without some sort of self-imposed limits. Co-considerational selfishness comes into play. We feel better in ourselves when we help others. Add opinion to mortality and you see it better. These are my set of moral codes formed via my experiences and shaped by my personal opinion. In my opinion this is right and this is wrong. Saying that is more reasonable than saying certain things are morally right or wrong. In my opinion certain things are morally right or wrong.