Clearly then the minimum conception of morality, is on an individual basis. Each individual tries to use logic and reason to establish which action is the best choice within the bounds of morality, considering each person that would be affected. Each individual has different logic, and in so many cases humans have just a few moments to ponder which is the best course of action. Take too long, and you've lost the opportunity to act--thus choosing inaction.
Considering a real situation perhaps establishing some general moral rules based on standard situations is the best way to go. Whether you're determining what the contract is, what your duties to humanity are, or what would derive the most amount of happiness (and least pain); rules may be a system for an average person, who does not have a great deal of time to determine every action, to determine what is moral.
Immorality could then be defined, not as an action which does not fit the rules, but then as an action which was knowingly committed which did not fit the rules. That is not saying it is not immoral to kill a man if you had not decided it was immoral, it is merely putting some sort of degree into the situation.
The problem, which is huge in a society with laws is, that if we can determine our own morals---does that then mean our morals are equal to law, or we must disobey our morals to obey the law? Or obey our morals and disobey the law?
A quote comes to mind, (though I cannot recall from precisely which book and chapter) "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's." Even in a secular understanding the point remains--give to the law what it requires.
Is morality belonging to the law?
No comments:
Post a Comment