People often speak about morality. They do it when they want to criticize someone or to justify their own behavior. They use the word morality freely enough, without giving a second thought to what they really mean by the word. Besides, it can hardly be denied that different people and especially different communities may act according to different moral principles. Thus, something which is considered quite moral in one community may look absolutely immoral in another, which leads to a conclusion that morality is, in fact, a very relative thing.
Speaking about morality, people usually operate such concepts as goodness and badness. The behavior named moral is good while those activities which do not conform to standard moral principles are viewed as bad. But the problem is to decide what these moral principles are and if we can say that they are standard. Thus, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines morality as “certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for his/her own behavior” (“The definition of morality”). So, it is clear that these codes of conduct may differ from one community to another, from one person to another. For example, Muslims think it quite appropriate to have several wives while Christians strongly disapprove of it. Moreover, polygamy is illegal in many civilized countries.
There is no wonder that different ethical systems judge morality in different ways as well. For example, ethical systems can be basically divided into deontological and teleological ones. The former is concerned solely with the inherent nature of the act being judged whereas the latter judges the consequences of an act (Pollock 25). Thus, under a teleological ethical system even a bad act is viewed as good if the consequence of this act is positive. Another source of moral rule which people may follow is their religion. For a believer, religion provides necessary moral guidelines and directions on how to live and behave. But as it is mentioned above, religions differ and so do the principles they support. Even one and the same God’s command can be interpreted in different ways by different religions. In addition to all this, there is also a natural law ethical system which says that “there is a universal set of rights and wrongs similar to many religious beliefs, but without reference to a specific supernatural figure” (Pollock 29). It can be said that this is generally the system of rules that most people follow, but their understanding of these “universal” rules can be greatly pre-determined by their culture, religion, social status, environment, etc. Therefore, it would be more correct to say that moral principles are a prevailingly individual code of behavior which may have certain similarities with the codes of individuals living in the same community and having the same religious beliefs. Usually people learn how to behave in the right way from their parents; however, with maturity people may change their worldview and consider some other principles more morally right.
Some people may disagree with the idea that morality is relative. They could say that if it were so, people of the world would never be able to agree on anything and there would always be wars, crime, and anarchy. But relativity of morality does not mean that people’s ethical systems do not correspond at all. In most cases, they are similar, especially the ethical systems of those who live in the same community or/and share the same religion. Besides, there are cases that must be judged individually. A person may act against some basic moral rules of his/her community, but under certain circumstances such behavior could be the only right thing to do. For example, it is immoral to tell a lie; but if the truth can literally kill another person, it would be better to lie.
There is also the law which regulates people’s behavior in the society. The law is generally based on some universal moral principles, but not always. So, people living in the same community must obey the law enacted in their community, even if this law goes against their personal moral principles. If they choose to disobey the law and stick to their principles, they may be punished. Morality of the law, though, is also a very relative thing. For example, it is illegal to violate traffic rules. It is obvious that traffic rules exist because they protect people’s lives helping them to avoid accidents. But if a person speeds up because he/she is trying to bring another person to hospital in order to save life, it can hardly be considered immoral. However, it is undoubtedly against the law.
So, morality is a philosophical issue. No one denies it is important to follow morality rules, but no one can say for sure what these rules are. Morality is a code according to which people live and act, but such codes differ. That is why people of different cultures or religions can disagree on some seemingly obvious things. The behavior which looks outrageous in one community may be seen as normal in another. Besides, there is also a role of circumstances that can make a person act in the way which goes against this person’s standard moral rules. Some religious fanatics who never violate the rules their religion supports may look obsessed and, in some cases, act in a rather cruel way. Killing others only because their religion is different can never be justified by any morality. Thus, people should not be narrow-minded and deny everything that is not theirs. Moreover, they should stop destroying everything that goes beyond their understanding. People should accept the fact that morality is a relative thing. So, sometimes deviation from the norm can bring better results and more peace to your home.
Works Cited
Pollock, Joycelyn M. Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice. 8th ed. Belmont: Cengage Learning, 2014. Print.
“The definition of morality.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Metaphysics Research Lab, 2016. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/>
