Morality

Before we delve in to the issue of human morality, let us discuss what morality might be. We might see it as "doing good," but then people's opinions of good seem to differ. This is arguable of course, and part of our discussion is the question of whether there is any intrinsic good in the world; in other words, is something either good or bad, or is there a grey area? Morality, it seems, can be made purely subjective. If we look to other cultures where all manner of things are seen as good, such as the serving of aborted fetuses in restaurants, or the slaughter of 'unhealthy' children at birth, albeit an ancient practice. Morality changes from culture to culture, and from period in history to period in history. In a hundred years, it may be considered barbaric that we farm animals for human consumption. The ambiguity of what is right and what is wrong is evident even within a culture. There are those who enjoy self mutilation, and although we can devise some mental illness or psychology trauma to explain it, the moral values of the individual remain different from the moral values of others. We see feminist arguments which bring certain moral issues under speculation. We see the abortion debate rage on. Years ago it was considered terribly wrong for a woman to have lost her virginity before she was married, so much so that there are accounts of women who committed suicide because they couldn't take the shame. So the question is, what is morality anyway? Is it merely the majority vote for what is right at the time? And why should we be moral if morality isn't something we can rely on?

Society needs morality

If we are to function in society, or at least continue to live without being ostracised, it is clear that we should follow the moral standards set by the society we live in. There is undoubtedly some general consensus as to what is right and what is wrong. Slowly, society adapts to those who make a big enough noise. Gay and Lesbian groups are still making a noise. Ethics committees are continually contemplating how far they will let researchers go. There was an outrage when scientists grew a human ear on the back of a mouse. Test tube babies caused a stir in the community. But moral standards have changed. They have always been changing, and will never cease to change. But still we cannot abandon them altogether saying, "In a hundred years, everyone will accept what I'm doing." In theory, we can invisage a world where human embryos are farmed in order to generate organs for transplants. Why not now? It can be argued to be both good and bad, and in view of society's apparent acceptance of abortion, the idea is more acceptable than abortion is. But society needs a set of moral rules, otherwise... what? People will go around killing whoever they have had an argument with? Or perhaps everyone will spend all their waking hours doped up. Yet all these things may be quite acceptable in a hundred years. The only reason I see that people need a set of moral rules is so that at any one time, there is a balance between the number of goods and the number of evils.

We can change our view, somewhat. Let us argue that there are intrinsic goods and evils. That killing someone is intrinsically evil. Everyone somehow knows this; we all agree. There are grey areas, such as abortion and euthanasia. However, the mere fact that both these issues receive so much debate shows that deep down people know that killing is evil. Those who advocate abortion or euthanasia will all agree that killing is bad, but they see the 'greater evil' - the burden of having an unwanted child, or the daily torture of a person who cannot do anything but wait to die, and feel miserable and in pain while doing so. Morality is hard to establish in many situations, and no wonder there is ever changing views. However, there are certain things which I believe remain intrinsic. What makes them right or wrong appears to be a mystery. Even those who claim that God simply made them that way find it difficult to answer the question, "Why did God choose what he chose as good and evil?" It comes back to the same puzzling question that we must contemplate, with or without God; what makes something good or evil? But if it is true that all moral values are relative, determined by culture or by upbringing, then we are left in a situation where we cannot condemn anything, from racism to murder, and this doesn't sit right for anyone in any culture.

The dilemma