When a person consults a dictionary to find a formal definition of morality, the idea expressed appears to be “conduct of the individual is what constitutes being moral”.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.[1]
What is not expressed, although intimated, is that relationships are the essence of morality. More than this, how we think about what we do in respect to our relationships with other people is overlooked. For there is no need to be moral if there are no relationships to consider, or any need to contemplate our responsibility within relationships. This is why people demonstrate their ignorance when it comes to the Ten Commandments that were written by the Creator of the Universe. They overlook that morality is about relationships and their obligations within those relationships.
Some consideration of the dictionary definitions highlights the inadequacy of the popular understanding of morality, or what is framed as the popular understanding of being moral.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Just to say that a wrong judgment caused a human action to be that of foolishness may seem a moral blunder, but what is not overtly stated is whether there is any bearing on a relationship. The impression is that this an individual action that has no bearing upon other people, just on the individual fouling up alone. If a person foolishly gets drunk and wastes his or her life savings at a casino, demonstrating a lapse of moral character, this does not tell us anything about any relationship with another person—even if implications exist.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Likewise when it comes to teaching or exhibiting goodness in behavior, there is no reference to those who might be affected. The individual may have gone for a run, not fallen over, not kicked a can, not deviated from the course, not broken any road rule; but this does not tell us anything about any relationship to other people. Developing character through self-discipline may be a moral lesson, but tells us nothing about relationships—for morality is about relationships. Imparting knowledge does not require a relationship at a personal level; it can be a very distant impersonal act.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
A person may decide to become an ascetic and live a solitary life, and in this respect be considered a moral, virtuous, upright individual. But this tells us nothing in respect to any relationship with another person other than the lack of one.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
When speaking of a moral obligation, once more we need to ask the question: Moral obligation to what or whom? A person might believe he or she has a moral obligation not to kill cats or mice or ants. What is known as a pseudo-conscience, or as expressed in the Encyclopedia Britannica when speaking of the superego, can relate to oneself and not necessarily to another person: The superego's criticisms, prohibitions, and inhibitions form a person's conscience, and its positive aspirations and ideals represent one's idealized self-image, or “ego ideal.”[2] superego | psychology
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
When speaking of a psychological element, this is not necessarily social psychological, where the relationships of other people are taken into account. Psychology can be solely about the individual and how the individual views one’s environment, not necessarily how a person is coping within personal interactions in relationships with other people. Much psychology has to do with obsessive behavior or personal orientation or motivation, and does not necessarily involve relationships. This is reflected in the above definition, although moral support alludes to the involvement of others, but even then, this involvement can be minimal, such as spectators cheering an athlete whom they do not know, but represents their country in an international competition.
Morality addressed by the Ten Commandments have to do with one’s relationship with the Creator of the Universe, and with other people. Without interaction with other people, there is no need for morality. Interaction requires some form of relationship and any relationship can be that of a spectator, a passerby, a competitor, an acquaintance, a fellow worker, a distant relative, a close relative, a nuclear family member, a husband, wife, son, daughter, mother or father and a friend. However, unless there is some communication, there is no relationship, and people can be ships in the night gliding past each other without any light.
Morality does not change. Morality is absolute. However, people might like to think morality is relative or think ethics can depend upon the situation. Unlike true morality, situational ethics and relative morality are really the breakdown of social cohesion rather than the enjoyment of harmonious relationships that contribute to the ideal lifestyle.
If you are not sure about the need for harmonious relationships contributing to an ideal lifestyle, just wander onto the turf of warring gang members and ask some of them what it is like to know that your day could end with an execution—yours not theirs!
Footnotes
No comments:
Post a Comment