The topic of “morality” is
prominent in Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. The reading sparks controversies about
which type of prince is more desirable: a virtuous and moral prince, or one who
intends to protect the principality, despite possibly inflicting pain on his
people and violating certain morals. However, I believe that before one can
even bring these questions into consideration, one must define “morality”. Because morality is a
rather broad, subjective term, it is perhaps better to define morality by
answering questions regarding its essence and bases.
After concluding reading, questions
concerning morality arise; such as, “is morality real?” or “would morality
exist without human life?” I believe that morality is an invention of the human
superego that exists in order to explain the actions or behaviors of all living
things. Morality is not a natural characteristic of someone or something; we,
as analytical creatures, feel a need to find meaning in, and reason for, any
and every action of both humans and animals. From this intensive rumination is
“morality” born. Humans create “morality”, and attribute it to all life as
though all are capable of having it. A lion that kills and antelope is not
acting immorally; neither is a cockroach when it runs into a human while
looking for food in a dorm, nor a flock of geese when it leaves a wounded goose
behind during migration. These animals have neither the intention nor the
intellectual capability to establish or act upon moral values. To these animals,
behavior is a function of their natural drive to stay alive. Humans, because we
are generally not in danger of losing our lives, have the time to sit,
contemplate, and fabricate reasons for others’ behaviors.
Even in humans, a degree of
morality is not attributed to anyone before they exhibit some behavior that
suggests they are virtuous. “Morality” as a characteristic comes after
behavior. No one can look at a picture of someone and claim whether they are
moral or amoral, because it is merely a conception.
Finally, how are we to define
morality as one single notion? Terrorists, murderers, and rapists all can be
moral; their beliefs, virtues, and values may be extremely different from those
of the majority of the population, but their morals are determined by their
beliefs and feelings, just as ours are.
As we can see, even after using
sets of questions to better clarify the term “morality”, it is still difficult
to compose a single, concrete definition. One can be “moral” or “amoral”. One’s
morals can be “good” or “bad”. It is impossible to define “morality” in a way
that eliminates human subjectivity, because it is begotten of the human
intellect.
Will Murphy
August 30, 2012
Dear Will,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points that morality cannot be defined as a single action, rather a series of actions. However I do respectfully disagree with your notion that morality is merely a bi-product of a human superego, because I don't believe that a truly moral person desires or requires any form of narcissistic satisfaction. Instead, I believe in Plato's explanation of virtue, in that one is not simply born virtuous, rather a virtuous and moral human being only becomes that way by performing acts of virtue. The truly just and moral person does not even know that he is just and moral, it is simply the way he lives his life. Furthermore, I do believe that there is something embedded in our genetic code that instills in us the ability to reason between right and wrong. Just as animals instinctively know how to hunt and protect their young(for the most part), we as people know to be just and moral. Even in one of the earliest known works of literature entitled "The Epic of Gilgamesh," there is a strong sense of discernment between right and wrong, and immoral action is certainly met with consequence.
To some people morality might just be a code of conduct that one follows in order to avoid punishment. However, that behavior is not moral or virtuous, it is just fear twisted into obedience. Whether or not morality would exist without the human race is difficult to predict. However,I do believe that species with superior brain function such as dolphins and primates do posses the intelligence that could potentially allow them to realize the difference between right and wrong. In conclusion Will, I believe that our ultimate goal as humans is to obtain happiness. This statement might sound naive, but I don't believe that humans can attain true happiness through living an amoral life. I do respect your attempt to define morality as it is no easy task, and I look forward to commenting on every single one of your posts in the future.
Your Friend,
David Pettiette
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteI should clarify that the "superego" is not an extreme form of the narcissistic ego, as the name may suggest. Instead, it is one of the three parts of the mind (the others being ego, which concerns the impulsive portion of the mind, and the ego, which is more realistic in nature). The superego is the part of the mind that refers to the moral standards and virtues.
A further explanation of these terms can be found here: http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/personalityelem.htm
Thanks,
Will