Is Morality Subjective?

By Randell Stroud

After spending a quiet evening reading the book of Poverbs in the Christian Bible, I began to ask myself--- "Is it truly realistic to live up to these guidelines?" The next morning, I began to read, "The Prince", by Niccolo Machiavelli who seems to agree that morality is subjective. Society has etched these ideas in our hearts that murder, lying, cheating, and stealing are wrong or undesirable. Not many would disagree, and neither would Niccolo Machiavelli, however, does our society truly practice what it preaches?

"Treat your neighbor as you would treat yourself."- Bible

"Beat out the competition at any cost!" - Your mother and father

We are raised with a duality in society. During our early years, we are instilled with a sense of morality that is so black and white, yet as we enter our adult years, we quickly realize that most people would set aside their moral values if it would benefit them, especially in extreme survival situations.

While it may be unfathomable to steal a loaf of bread while your bank account is full, your mind may alter or justify this action if you were a single parent who had no money at all. You may find the act of murder reprehensible until you discover that your brother or sister had been raped or murdered. Upon learning of this, you go into a murderous rage yourself!

"No sex before marriage", is what your parents will say, yet when asked of them, their faces become red with embarrassment, because they themselves did not likely follow this rule. After all, men and women were literally designed to procreate with one another. Our opposing genitalia is biological evidence of this design, whether it be through evolution or intelligent design.

When we dig a bit deeper into this conversation, suddenly our world-view begins to crash downwards. Is nothing sacred? Are their no rules? Is it all just figments of imagination imposed on us through unchallenged tradition? Or were such rules developed out of trial and error, a strict warning from our ancestors who had already experienced the tribulations of hedonism.

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. We are a people of justification. Our court systems reflect this. To murder someone out of calculated malice is considered a "1st degree murder.". Whereas, if we accidentally murdered someone because of some extreme circumstance, it would be classified as "involuntary manslaughter". Then there is petty theft, then there is grand larceny. So even the act of stealing has different categories.

In the legal system, we separate an evil act into two categories. "Mens rea" and "actus rea". The "Actus Rea"- is latin for, - "The action that has taken place". So, if I were to shoot someone in the chest with a firearm which lead to their death, this scenario would be labeled as the "actus reas". The tricky part comes in when we dissect the "mens rea". --Latin for, "The mental status".

If I were to shoot someone in the chest with a firearm and kill them, it would undoubtedly be a murder. However, the "mens rea" (the motivation- mental state), behind the killing would determine my judgement. If the murder was planned, calculated, and performed with a clear mind, the murder would be considered "unjustifiable". Let's say that I came home from work and witnessed my wife performing a sexual act on another man on my bed, and without thinking, I picked up an object and struck the man in the head out of anger, accidentally killing the man.

In this situation, the "Mens Rea", (mental state), was not stable, clear, sane, or able to function properly. Depending on the jury and the judge, I may be exonerated, given probation, or charged with a felony, it all depends on other details surrounding the story.

When it comes to morality, I believe our society judges our action in the same way. If a man got locked up in prison for 10 years, and upon release, discovered that his wife had an affair while he was incarcerated, she may justify her action by saying, "You were gone for so long, thus, I had needs." Even though her action is still wrong, there is some justification to her misdeed. Or, if a homeless person stole a loaf of bread, the person would still be considered a thief, yet society would have some sympathy for them.

Mercy and forgiveness are usually given to these types of people who find themselves in unique positions that challenge their morals. However, it is when those people who murder, rape, steal, and pillage with a clear and concise motive,without justification, that society removes itself from its own morality to punish the actor with similar actions. In the Bible, this is known as the "An eye for eye" principle. Cold blooded murderers are generally executed, In cases where there is clear evidence of aggressive rape-- rapists have often been castrated. Thieves who stole just because they were too lazy to work often had their hands cut off. These actions show that civilized men are willing to be just as violent as their perpetrators. So much for turning the other cheek! This is why the idea of the death penalty is highly debated.

For this and many other reasons, morality is highly debated. However, it is universally agreed upon that "harm meets harm." If you cause someone pain without clear justification, it will be assumed that some sort of retaliation will be brought back against you. Morality is no so much of a spiritual concept more than it is a survivalist concept.

Morality also works in the positive. When we do nice things for people, generally, pleasant things are returned to us. Whether it be a gift in return, a thank you, a handshake, or a warm embrace by way of hugging! Morality is something is learned, not only through man-made or religious laws, but also through observance of natural law. "This begets that". "Cause and effect."

So, there are plenty of reasons to spread goodwill into the world. There are religious reasons, (Buddhism, Christianity speaks upon this), there are natural reasons, and there are economic reasons. Studies show that companies who give back to society are not only more trusted but they also benefit from the tax write-offs! Killing your enemy or defaming him may be a quicker way to win a short-term battle, but it may incite more enemies to come against thus resulting you in losing the long-term war.

Take the story of Chinese General, Yue Fei. His background was so pure, free of scandals or skeletons in his closet, that his enemies were forced to poison his food in order to get rid of his presence. It was impossible to fabricate false-charges against him because his reputation was so pure and trusted. However, even after he was poisoned, the truth eventually came out which brought great dishonor against the criminals and their families.

Keeping your reputation clean is imperative in this world. Once you develop a reputation for being a liar, a cheater, a thief, a killer, --- it will take much work to reverse such a reputation. Our thoughts precede our words, and our words precede our actions. Then again, many innocent men and women have been unfairly condemned. Jesus Christ being the best example. His only crime was his challenge to the state and their authority. He had no violence or malice in his words or actions. Yet, in a world ruled by an economic elite combined with a vast array of unjust laws, sometimes the righteous man can be transformed into a supposedly evil man by way of statute and law!

In conclusion, morality cannot be totally summed up by religion or man made courts. At the end of the day, it is only YOU would can look into the mirror and say, "I try to be a good person while surviving the days fight." Surviving in this mundane superficial Earthy existence sometimes requires us to reduce our values, yet you had better be justified in doing so! The fast food worker who serves unhealthy food to the public. The soldier who is forced to kill. The lawyer who defended a guilty man. We all face times in our lives were we must question our values or are forced to go against them.

So, what does it mean to be a "Good person" or an "evil person". A good person tries to live in a such a way where his needs are taken care of where he will not find himself in a position of having to be an "evil person" just to survive. If the good person is forced to compromise his values in order to survive, he will surely have guilt in his heart and ask for forgiveness. The Good person may perform an "evil act" but only if he is left no other option. He considers his future as well as the people around him.

The evil person will steal even when his wallet is full. He will kill just because it satisfies his blood lust. He will indulge in risky sexual behavior just because he thinks it feels good. He will lie just because it takes less time than explaining the whole story. The evil person has absolutely no qualms about his behavior so long as he/she is benefiting or enjoying himself. People are not human beings, but rather they are "play things" for his or her own entertainment.

Morality isn't black and white, but there is a universal rule. "If you can't convince 90 out of 100 people from various religious or cultural backgrounds that your actions are noble, then they probably arent!" Watch any nature show on television. Even animals will rarely kill for sport, and when they do, retaliation is often met.

"Do good and receive good."
"Do evil and receive evil."
"Do nothing and receive nothing."

Perhaps it is the art of "non-doing" or "non-existence" in society, that is the most noble path of all. The path of the hermit, the ascetic, or monk. Be a monk, visit the city on occasion, and return to solitude! Sometimes, especially those who come from poor backgrounds, get so good at merely surviving, that the idea of peace, stability, and communion becomes a foreign emotion to them. Hence why many people in low-income areas turn to drug dealing and theft to support themselves, yet do not know when to stop even as their profit margins reach into the millions. (See Ricky Ross.)

What do you guys think? Is morality objective or subjective? How do you define a good person vs an evil person? How do you reconcile purist beliefs with pragmatism?