Is morality subjective?

After spending a quiet night reading the book of Poverbs in the Christian Bible, I began to wonder — “Is sticking to these guidelines really realistic?” The next morning, I started reading “The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli, who seems to agree that morality is subjective. Society has carved these ideas into our hearts that murder, lying, cheating, and stealing are wrong or undesirable. Not many would disagree, and neither would Niccolo Machiavelli, however, does our society really practice what it preaches?

“Treat your neighbor as you would treat yourself.” – Bible

“Beat the competition at all costs!” – Your mother and father

We are raised with a duality in society. During our early years, we are instilled with a sense of morality that is as black or white, however, as we enter adulthood, we quickly realize that most people would set aside their moral values ​​if It will benefit them, especially in extreme survival situations.

While it may be incomprehensible to steal a loaf of bread while your bank account is full, your mind may alter or justify this action if you were a single parent with no money at all. He may find the act of murder reprehensible until he discovers that his brother or sister has been raped or murdered. Upon learning of this, you yourself go into a murderous rage!

“No sex before marriage,” is what your parents will say, but when asked, their faces turn red with embarrassment, because they probably didn’t follow this rule themselves. After all, men and women were literally designed to procreate with each other. Our opposite genitalia are biological evidence of this design, either through evolution or intelligent design.

When we get a little deeper into this conversation, suddenly our world view starts to collapse. Nothing is sacred? Are they your rules? Are they just products of the imagination that are imposed on us through an indisputable tradition? Or were those rules developed from trial and error, a strict warning from our ancestors who had already experienced the travails of hedonism?

I think the answer lies somewhere in between. We are a people of justification. Our court systems reflect this. Killing someone with calculated malice is considered “first degree murder.” Whereas, if we accidentally murder someone due to some extreme circumstance, it would be classified as “involuntary manslaughter”. Then there is petty theft, then there is grand theft. So even the act of stealing has different categories.

In the legal system, we separate a wrongdoing into two categories. “Mens rea” and “actus rea”. The “Actus Rea” – in Latin means – “The action that has taken place”. So if he were to shoot someone in the chest with a firearm leading to their death, this scenario would be labeled “actus reas”. The hard part comes when we dissect the “mens rea.” –Latin for, “The state of mind.”

If you were to shoot someone in the chest with a firearm and kill them, it would certainly be murder. However, the “mens rea” (the motivation-state of mind) behind the murder would determine my judgment. If the murder was planned, calculated, and carried out with a clear mind, the murder would be considered “unjustifiable.” Let’s say I came home from work and saw my wife performing a sexual act with another man on my bed, and without thinking, I picked up an object and hit the man over the head in anger, accidentally killing him.

In this situation, the “Mens Rea”, (mental state), was not stable, clear, sane or capable of functioning properly. Depending on the jury and the judge, I may be exonerated, put on probation, or charged with a felony, it all depends on other details surrounding the story.

When it comes to morality, I think our society judges our action in the same way. If a man was locked up in prison for 10 years and, upon release, discovers that his wife had an affair while he was incarcerated, she may justify her action by saying, “You were gone so long, therefore I had needs.” Even though his action is still wrong, there is some justification for his wrongdoing. Or, if a homeless person were to steal a loaf of bread, the person would still be considered a thief, but society would have some sympathy for them.

Mercy and forgiveness are often given to these types of people who find themselves in unique positions that challenge their morality. However, it is when those people who murder, rape, steal and loot with a clear and concise motive, without justification, that society evades its own morality to punish the actor with similar actions. In the Bible, this is known as the principle of “an eye for an eye.” Cold-blooded murderers are usually executed. In cases where there is clear evidence of aggressive rape, the rapists have often been castrated. Thieves who stole just because they were too lazy to work often had their hands cut off. These actions show that civilized men are willing to be as violent as their perpetrators. So much for turning the other cheek! This is why the idea of ​​the death penalty is hotly debated.

For this and many other reasons, morality is hotly debated. However, it is universally accepted that “harm meets harm”. If you cause someone pain without a clear justification, it will presumably bring some kind of retaliation against you. Morality is not so much a spiritual concept as it is a survival concept.

Morality also works positive. When we do nice things for people, usually nice things come back to us. Whether it’s a gift in return, a thank you, a handshake or a warm hug by way of a hug! Morality is something that is learned, not only through religious or man-made laws, but also through observance of natural law. “This begets that.” “Cause and effect.”

So there are many reasons to spread goodwill in the world. There are religious reasons (Buddhism, Christianity talk about this), there are natural reasons and there are economic reasons. Studies show that companies that give back to society are not only more trustworthy, but also benefit from tax breaks. Killing or smearing your enemy may be a quicker way to win a battle in the short term, but may incite more enemies to fight and thus lose the war in the long term.

Take the story of the Chinese general, Yue Fei. His past was so pure, free of scandals or skeletons in his closet, that his enemies were forced to poison his food to take away his presence. It was impossible to fabricate false charges against him because his reputation was so pure and trustworthy. However, even after he was poisoned, the truth eventually came out, bringing great disgrace against the criminals and their families.

Keeping your reputation clean is imperative in this world. Once you develop a reputation as a liar, a cheat, a thief, a murderer, it will take a lot of work to reverse that reputation. Our thoughts precede our words, and our words precede our actions. On the other hand, many innocent men and women have been wrongfully convicted. Jesus Christ being the best example. His only crime was his defiance of his state and his authority. He had no violence or malice in his words or actions. However, in a world ruled by an economic elite combined with a wide variety of unjust laws, sometimes the just man can be transformed into a supposedly evil man through statutes and laws!

In conclusion, morality cannot be totally summed up in religion or man-made courts. At the end of the day, only YOU can look in the mirror and say, “I try to be a good person while surviving the struggle of the day.” Surviving in this shallow and mundane earthly existence sometimes requires us to lower our values, but you better be justified in doing so! The fast food worker serving unhealthy food to the public. The soldier who is forced to kill. The lawyer who defended a guilty party. We all face moments in our lives when we must question our values ​​or are forced to go against them.

So what does it mean to be a “good person” or a “bad person”? A good person tries to live in such a way that his needs are taken care of and he is not in a position where he has to be a “bad person” just to survive. If the good person is forced to compromise her values ​​in order to survive, she will surely have guilt in her heart and ask for forgiveness. The good person can perform a “bad act” but only if he has no other choice. He considers his future as well as the people around him.

The wicked person will steal even when his wallet is full. He will kill only because it satisfies his bloodlust. He will indulge in risky sexual behavior just because he thinks it feels good. He will lie only because it takes less time than explaining the whole story. The evil person has absolutely no qualifications on her behavior as long as she is benefiting or enjoying herself. People are not human beings, but are “play things” for their own entertainment.

Morality is not black or white, but there is a universal rule. “If you can’t convince 90 out of 100 people of various religious or cultural backgrounds that your actions are noble, then they probably aren’t!” Watch any nature show on TV. Even animals rarely kill for sport, and when they do, they often retaliate.

“Do good and receive good.”

“Do evil and receive evil.”

“Do nothing and receive nothing.”

Perhaps it is the art of “not doing” or of “non-existence” in society, that is the noblest path of all. The way of the hermit, the ascetic or the monk. Be a monk, visit the city from time to time and return to solitude! Sometimes, especially those who come from poor backgrounds, they become so good just to survive, that the idea of ​​peace, stability and communion becomes a foreign emotion for them. Therefore, many people in low-income areas turn to drug dealing and robbery to support themselves, but don’t know when to stop, even when their profit margins run into the millions. (See Ricky Ross.)

What do you think? Is morality objective or subjective? How do you define a good person versus a bad person? How do you reconcile purist beliefs with pragmatism?