Morality is defined as the inherent "right" and "wrong" aspects of human behavior. A moral code stems from morality and is a system of these "right" and "wrong" behaviors. To be a moral person, according to the overall view of the people is to be a good person and to be immoral is to be a bad person. For the purpose of this analysis, I will be looking at descriptive ethics which is the overall view of how people should act
But where did this system come from, to what do we owe this minefield of human behavior? There are only two ways where these views came into effect. Through biological imperative or societal evolution.
The best example for looking at biological imperative is to examine social animal such as chimpanzees. Although these animals don't exactly display morality in the sense that we know, it can be observed that they have a social structure similar to ours. Such as group protection and teamwork. If we extrapolate this to humans, we can see a possible link in behavior. Further evidence for this theory is showed in social restraint, each animal knows its place in the group hierarchy.
From hierarchy, we now come to the social aspect of morality. As civilization has evolved, so have our practices, new countries, new technologies, new cultures. Each of these breeds a new system of morality and moral codes. Nietzsche brought up an interesting theory of the origin of morality, that it comes from cultural spite. Every culture has its opponents, for whatever reasons, that is not important. But he postulated the morality evolved from spite "That was is good to my enemy, is evil to me" However this theory is cannot be the SOURCE of morality, as this is not enough to provide enough sustenance to current moral codes. Another theory is that of utility, that what is useful is what is good, this related to Nietzsches theory of Master-Slave morality but this will not be discussed right now. Utility also related to biological imperative, usefulness is equivalent to a species survival. However is doubt this is also the origin point.
My theory of morality is that is stems entirely from control of the group, but also this takes into account utility and spite. Take the human leader, he was the strongest, he fought his way to the top of the pyramid of hierarchy. He now controls group A, he says "this is useful to our group, do this, if you fail to this you will be punished". Soon another group rises up, they have differing opinions. The leader of group B says "Don't follow their way, this way is more efficient, if you fail to do this you will be punished, this punishment will deter you more effectively". Soon group A and B will fight, one will be defeated and they will be assimilated. Group AB now has components of both moral codes. Albeit these are not obviously present, in the future members of the defeated group will venture from the main group to find new land and new resources. Group C
Look to the east, Group D wages battle with E. To the west F fights with G. And why do these groups fight, because their leaders told them to!
At this point I would like to say that I am quite the amateur at this, and although my opinions could easily be disagreed with. Stfu I'm doing this for fun.
Leaders dominate, leaders give the orders, leaders control the group. The groups morality stems from their will. Their will manifests as practices, practices change due to utility and spite for others. Human morality therefore, is constant, endless tribal warfare
No comments:
Post a Comment