On Morality

Med school rocks.

=D

So anyway, the other day, i was playing table tennis with a bunch of friends, chatting about various random things. The topic of homosexuality came up, and after i finished making my usual joke (an obvious 'subtle' moment towards the closest male), i stated that while i am straight (very, very straight), i had no feelings of animosity for anyone who tilted in the opposite direction.

Surprisingly, my neutral stand was not shared by quite a few of my friends. A couple of them were very anti homosexuality, in fact, so much so as to make declarations such as, i quote "if my son turns out to be gay, i'd just shoot him. If he's a boy, he has to be a boy".

Extreme, i thought. But the people who had this view werent stupid or close minded or anything. They were all intelligent, liberal, thinking folk (you have to be to get into this university), people who wouldnt make sweeping statements in ignorance or mis-guided belief. Their actual opinion was that homosexuality was morally wrong.

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But this set of a chain reaction of thoughts in my head, and they all revolved around this question: "What is moral?"

Everyone has a different answer for this question. What you think is perfectly correct from a moral sense, i might find completely and absolutely abhorrent. So who is correct?

This brings up the next question. Is there any such thing as universal morality? A set, solid bunch of rules, saying exactly what sort of activity is immoral for everyone?

Some people would say there is, and for arguements sake, i'll continue now as if there is a universal code of morality. What would be in this code?

Do not kill? Is it ALWAYS wrong to take a life? Most of the time, perhaps. But i'm sure there are occasions when killing is alright. Self defence, for instance. Or if the person is a danger to people around him or her. Killing is also used as a punishment for crimes. It seems like killing isnt ALWAYS wrong. In fact, in some circumstances, it seems morally wrong NOT to kill a person (dangerous folk, for instance). So that rule isnt universal.

Do not steal? This one was an interesting one to think about. What is the definiton of stealing? Taking something that belongs to someone else? What if YOU deserved the thing that person had? Or what if the act of not stealing will have serious adverse consequences? Is it alright to steal then? I think it is. So the moral rule on stealing isnt very universal either.

What about lying? Most people would agree that it is morally wrong to lie. But how many people actually completely refrain from lying? The first person who claims to have never lied is lying then and there. Lying has plenty of good uses, it can prevent akward situations or hurt feelings. SO lying isnt necessarily bad, meaning this rule cannot be considered universal either.


I can go on forever and ever. Any and every moral law, rule, or sensibility can be poked through. There will always be situations where things that are normally considered morally wrong are in fact acceptable, sometimes even required.

What about homosexuality? Is that morally wrong? Its been found in many animal species, and has been around as long as heterosexuality has been. How can something so natural be morally wrong?

It so happened the chaps who were anti homosexuality were muslim. That was another thing to look at. Religion has a serious effect on your individual moral standing. In fact, most of the time, your opinions are shaped by whatever religion (or the absence of one) you were brought up in. People claim secular laws and human rights are universal, but even secular laws are based on what religion says. No matter how much we try, it is impossible to seperate religion from law of the state, and consequently the law of the individual, which is that person's morality.

And if people base their morality on religion, because of the huge number and diversity in the religions of the world today, an equally large difference in the moral opinions of the people will be present.


So i think i can pretty much rule out the existance of a universal moral code.

The other alternative is that there is no universal moral code. As long as you feel, honestly deep down in your heart, that what you're doing is correct, you are on the morally right path.

But this opens up an immense pandora's box of conflict and anarchy. This means that no one has the right to tell another person 'hey, stop. What you're doing is wrong', because it isnt wrong. But this would mean no order, no control, people doing exactly what they like when they like, and society as we know it would pretty much implode.

So the existance of a universal moral code is doubtful, but the non existance of it is a potential disaster. A fine mess we find ourselves in!

I christen this the Morality Crisis.

Now what?

This is where religion comes in as so useful. It proclaims a universal code of morality, thus giving people a strict guideline to conform to. It keeps everyone under control, which is a good thing from the society's point of view. Whether religion is correct or not is besides the point; all that matters is that people believe it (a bit blindly) and follow it.

In this way religion is a pretty imperfect solution to the morality crisis. It works by supressing free thought and individualism, and encouraging blind faith in things that can never be proven. It does work, true, but its more a case of the lesser of the two evils.

It does give hope for the future though. Maybe one day people wont need religion to tell them what to do. I can almost imagine a society where everyone thinks before acting, where all the individual members work towards the collective betterment of the society, for the benefit of everyone involved. A society where people, when faced with decisions, act in certain ways not because God told them too, not because it the social norm, but because they know, they can see, what will be good in the long run for mankind.

I can dream.