It’s undeniable that each and one of us who is sane and conscious tries to live by a moral code of our own making or imagination. It might change with time and circumstances, with the adaptation of new beliefs and the rejection of previously held ones. We might be inconsistent or even break it once in while, and in that case we feel guilty. But all of us do have an idea of what is wrong and what is right; we wouldn’t do what we think is wrong given a choice.
But what exactly does it mean to have a moral code? Why do we have it, and from where is it derived? Can we live without it? Is some moral codes better than others? Is there a golden moral code, an objective framework to guide our decision making process, that is better than all other moral codes?
I define a moral code as not just guidelines you live your life by and govern your decisions by, but rules — with penalties in case you break them and reward in case you chose the right one over the wrong one. I think if it weren’t for the penalties and the reward, we wouldn’t keep the moral codes for ourselves — humans are generally selfish creatures. There is no action we take that is no carried out in our own best interest if you really get into the bottom of it. In this case it is similar to the Law societies introduce for themselves, reflecting the moral codes of the Lawmakers.
Is it derived from a higher authority? I cannot believe otherwise. It is always the case that we derive it from some higher authority who also tend to prescribe the punishment/penalties for breaking the code and the rewards for keeping it. Some of us derived it from God and Revelation/religion scholars, others from Science/Reason, while most of us derived it from a variety of sources. It is obvious to note that it is the threat of “punishment” and the offer of “reward" that actually builds the instruction into the moral code. For example science may prove that smoking is bad for our health (prescribes a punishment for smoking) and so we could adopt a rule in our moral code “thou shall not smoke”.
From this it is clear that we adapt a moral code only when there is a selfish reason so as to do so. I do not believe in pure altruism. I decide to jump into the water to save a drowning soul not purely because of unselfish reasons. I have somehow given value to the act of saving life and punishment for the act of neglecting to do just that. This is something that needs some quite deep and radical thinking to accept.
Is there some objective framework we could live our lives by? Does there exists a moral code that we could derive through the application of reason and logic — one which is as objective and universal as the laws of maths and physics? I believe the answer is yes, but I vehemently disagree that this golden moral code could be derived purely through our collective reason and use of logic.
But that is up for debate.
0 comments: