According to Webster dictionary, "morals" is defined as: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong. To simplify, Morals is what dictates "wrong" or "right". We live by this permeable force found in individuals and society as a whole everyday and its undeniable but have you ever wondered where they came from and are they a universal absolute, meaning that it is an intrinsic fundamental truth in which we all abide by? Or are morals relative; dependent on time and culture? I would like to shed light on this topic through my discoveries to open new possibilities of thought. First and foremost, I would like to elaborate about what morals entails and I assume that everyone has some sort of understanding of it. We know morals exists because our reactions. We would never say "that's not fair", "that's not right", or "that's not just". Our reactions help us identify what justice is. We would never believe that the attacks on 9/11 were "wrong" and the holocaust was "evil". "Good", "bad", "right", wrong" and "fair" are descriptive words relating to morals. Without morals there would be no basis for human rights. Also without morals there would be no way to measure the difference.When we evaluate the the behavior of Hitler and Gandhi, we are using morals. Without it, statements like "racism is wrong", "murder is evil", "child abuse is bad"would have no objective meaning and it would be a matter of opinion like "chocolate taste better than vanilla". A matter of fact, Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers even thought that morals existed by stating in the US Declaration of Independence, "we hold these truths to be self evident". If morals didn't exists then we wouldn't make excuses for violating it. So from these arguments, we can see that morals do in fact exists.
With that established, I would like to continue next by discussing the first topic on where morals derived from. Some evolutionists claim that that morals are a product due to evolution. To review, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next through mutation, migration, or horizontal gene transfer. Morals, which determines what's right or wrong, as I previously discussed, is needed in order to benefit the species. Without morals, the species wouldn't survive because detrimental and destructive activities would put an end to it. In other words, as humans, we must develop morals to be good to one another for the mere reason of survival. This seems to be a rather legitimate stance to others right? I disagree somewhat so let's take a look more into this. First of all, evolutionist are materialist meaning that everything consist of material such as atoms and molecules. If that is the case, then there should be a way to physically measure morals. How much does the "hate molecule" weigh? What's the chemical composition of love? That is absurd on how materials are responsible for a non-material thing such as morals. If materialist and evolutionist are correct then we shouldn't blame Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden for their actions because they just has a few bad molecules in them and it was inevitable due to their genes. Obviously, Hitler himself supported the Darwinist view by eliminating the Jews, in which he though was an inferior race. But we all can agree that he was wrong, right? Should we blame evolution? Of course not! Furthermore, one can say that morals are needed for the "good" of the species. Well that statement itself is self defeating because how can the word "good" be used if it regards morals in itself.
By who's definition are we using when we define something to be "good" or "bad" anyways? Who is to say what is "good" for the species and assume that survival is "good" to begin with? And, to whom is it good for? Is this moral reciprocity for the individual species or for the group? Who has the right to be right? How could such a process determine what "right" or "wrong" is initially and at what point did evolution know what "right" or wrong" was? In other words, how could something have the impulse to take the "right" course of action if there was no "right" or wrong" to begin with? Morals could not have been the source of itself. If morals were the product of evolution then why should the strong cooperate with the weak when its all about "survival of the fittest"? Why should we feel compassion for the weak, unable, and retarded people? If evolution strives to ultimately aim for survival then how can it explain why people commit suicide, engaged in destructive behavior with substance abuse, or take noble risk of their lives for others? If one group of species were in direct competition to their equal counter parts but were more moral, does that mean that they would out do their competition? But that wouldn't be considered good would it?C.S. Lewis adds another perspective in this topic:
When you see someone being mugged and calling for help, our stronger instinct tells us to be safe by running away as oppose to our weaker instinct telling us to help. However, there is a third thing that suppress the stronger one and encourages the weaker one that we ought to help and that itself can not be instinct.
And if everything can be explained in terms of evolution then our curiosity to seek truth and understand morals is due to hard wiring in itself in which we have no control of. All in all, I must say that evolution fails to provide a biological explanation to man's moral faculties and stating that evolution is responsible for morals faces grave difficulties. It faces what I call a 2 point dilemma:
1. If morals had a natural source through genetics, then it is not objective or absolute, there is no right or wrong, and our values are equivalent to that in which we came from, slime, since we have no grounds to say we are morally better; The only reason why you are understanding about morals is because you are genetically engineered to do so.
2. Even if morals were genetically subjective, then we shouldn't blame people for murder, rape, and stealing because they were hard wired like that. Its permissible. It would just be one's opinion over the other so get over it and stop whining and complaining!!
To me, evolution serves no justice when answering where morality came from.If morals did not come from evolution then where did it come from? We must then seek other avenues to possibly answer that question. But what about society and culture? Could society play an important role in the development of morals? I believe so, however I don't agree that it was the cause of morals. But that too faces another challenge. Where did that society get their morals from? From the generation before them? And where did that society get their morals from? It would be a never ending question without a satisfying answer. Some can distinguish the difference between morals in different countries but fail to look at the similarities. For example, Hindus revere their cows but Americans eat their cows so morals must be different. But the reasoning behind why Hindus don't eat their cows is because they believe that their ancestors live in them but Americans don't. If Americans shared the same beliefs then they too would probably not eat their grandmother. The underlying truth is that murder is wrong. The belief might be different but the morals are still the same.
Well what about the abortion issue? Some say that people have different morals when pertaining to that. The reason why its up for debate is because no one can determine at what point its actually a human. No mother would murder their own child for the sake of murdering or the knowledge of it being wrong. If everyone knew at what point it was then there wouldn't be such a huge disagreement. Even Ronald Regan pointed out that if everyone had to go back to their mothers womb, they would be anti abortionist. When regarding abortion, there is a huge controversy and divisions between pro choice and pro life, which some address that it demonstrates that morals are relative. The belief of when its actually a human may be different the the morals that murder is wrong is still shared. While morals indicate what "ought" to be done, different cultures have values and beliefs of "how" it should be done. For example, we all know that when we meet someone we "ought" to express some sort of hello and acknowledge the individual. However different cultures express them in different ways from a kiss, waving a hand, shaking hands, hug, etc. Also, some may see the differences but what about the similarities? Do you think any country or civilization,no matter what time period, would honor a coward? Would praise a man that killed his own parents and raped his kids? Of course not!! That is ridiculous to believe that.
If anyone, regardless of age, race, background, sex, culture, (including notorious murderers) saw a baby on the edge of a well, potentially endangered by plunging down to its death, I can guarantee that compassion and concern would be expressed to its highest degree. That implies a universal moral we all share. Well , what about tribes that eat others and sacrifice their own people? Isn't that sufficient reasoning that morals are based on time era and culture? Not necessarily, because the only reason why they practice cannibalism is because they don't think that they are humans. They still know that murder is wrong or else they wouldn't perform ceremonial, spiritual rituals before a sacrifice to relive themselves before the act because they know its wrong. Even Hitler knew murder was wrong or else he wouldn't have dehumanized the Jews in order to rationalize killing them. Murderers know that killing is wrong its just that they don't have remorse. There is also another confusion about one's position on morality. I often hear the statement, " Morals did not come from God because I'm atheist/agnostic and I have morals/ or understand them". That doesn't necessarily prove that God doesn't exists and that morals didn't come from God just because atheist have morals. Christians believe that God was the source of morals but why do they sometimes do immoral things? Some Christians claim that since atheist do not believe in God, therefore they do not have morals. That itself is not true. Atheist or Christians have innate knowledge of what right or wrong is. Everyone has. Religion may play an influence but is not the source of morals. Religion is not necessary for people to live a moral and ethical life. It could be stated that even that the animal kingdom exhibits some set of morals. I believe that there is confusion between instinct and morals. Animals don't have morals in a sense that they can think over the result before acting on it and judging whether its right or wrong. Animals do kill each other but its always for the mere reason of territorial gains, defense, power, or food. I can hardly imagine an animal killing for the sake of killing, committing rape, and plotting wars. It would be hard to imagine conditioning a monkey to express compassion when another steals from its friend.
To summarize, evolution and nurture leaves inconclusive answers to where the source of morals came from. My indications show that absolute moral laws do in fact exists. We don't invent it but only discover it.But, if the morals laws were embedded in us, then it would require a law giver!
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น