For the sake of humanity

Many arguments have been raised regarding the issue of morality. Contentions range from its definition to the practicality of holding fast to virtues and values. The only aspect that everyone does seem to generally agree upon is the opinion that a moral person definitely deserves a more honourable regard than an immoral person. In many situations, however, a logical line of thought can easily deny the celeratory tone attached to morality.

Firstly, it must be noted that morality and character, although overlapping in many instances, is not entirely inclusive of each other. A marathon runner may have shown tremendous determination and strength. Yet, this is not necessarily moral. Morality often involved instances of returning money that you picked up from the floor or not breaking any rules. Being a fervent law-enforcer, however, similarly strays from morality. Morality refers to personal values and the ways in which you implement them. Everyone believes that they are moral, and immorality is often a label tagged onto others.

While this definition may seem simple enough to understand, it begins to get confusing when we look at specific situations. If, as a soldier, you shoot and kill an enemy, is that immoral? Your responsibilities to your family and country would naturally outweigh all else. Yet, the mere act of killing is generally deemed immoral. When you cheat in the examinations, is that being a brave risk-taker or a coward who does not dare to face your limits? When you cross an empty street but at a do-not-cross section, are you being streetwise or a law-breaker? Following the arguments of many renowned philosophers, the answer becomes obvious when we ignore the needs and effects our actions may have on other people. The dilemma of morality ceases to exist when we are driven by selfish interests. And while that may sound very inhumane, survival instincts are the driving force behind the success of any species. Charles Darwin crafted the entire theory of evolution based on this idea that humans want to survive. In most cases then, the more selfish someone is, the more likely he or she is likely to attain success. But at what cost?

Society exists and thrive because of the people and the relationships that they share with one another. The wider the income gap, the greater the dissatisfaction felt by the lower-earning class. This causes a lot of tension which results in a very volatile society. The more immoral the people of a society are, the more the society will be made up of distinct individuals. The people would not feel attached to the society and would hence not consider its welfare. There would be no political involvement, and the government would not possess any control over its people. While this is slightly overstated, the situation would inevitably lean towards such a scenario. Morality triggers care for others, fostering interpersonal relationships. This makes control and rule over them much easier.

Is morality then good or evil? Everyone possesses a certain innate amount of morality. Parents care for their children, and that is morality in its most basic, simplest form. To assume that moral people are entirely moral and those less moral are entirely immoral is thus a trememdous fallicy. Morality has a spectrum. To where should we then lean towards? That is a personal question that not even established philosophers are not willing to take a stand on.

A crucial observation would however be that there is no measure for morality. There is only a measure for success. Perhaps, to lean towards immorality is a much more rational decision, albeit it being mercenary. But yet, who can say whether being mercenaric is immoral or even detestable?