Some people describe their basic morals as "not hurting anybody" Whilst this is in the long-run, true, it doesn't grasp the big picture. Sometimes, morals may hurt in the short term.
In evolutionary terms, morals are best described as agreed codes of conducts that guarantee the highest degree of survival. And this applies to all actions and behaviour, even if it may not seem so. Every reason one has not to do a certain immoral act has a root in some sort of survival, usually in physical terms. If one steals, this may not be a survival issue on the surface, but the thief runs the risk of being outcasted from society if found out, therefore downgrading his survival quotient. Something like killing or rape is even more obvious, but hopefully, people who just read this paragraph get the jist.
Religious claims to base morals in following a deity or some sort of holy rules. Whilst they claim this is their reason, it is also rooted in survival, especially in the sense of avoiding the consequence of hellfire, or rebirth, or alienation from their God.
Basically, morals are aimed to preserve the integrity of one's personal values, and usually, those values are similar among people, usually being similar depending on the type of people they grew up with. Like, if one were to abstain from pornography or promiscuity, it is to preserve the exclusivity of a future relationship that may or may not be obtained. Others beg to differ when they have multiple spouses, whether they be simultaneous or serial. It's still all relative, depending on what they chose to follow.
I would have said it all in a nutshell, but I thought hypothetical examples would help.
|
|
Bookmarks