Why Should I?

Since the dawn of consciousness, humanity has struggled with determining exactly which forms of behavior are most amenable to the success of each individual. To this end, moral guidelines are chosen that are supposed to govern human interaction within a society, as well as between differing societies. Also, these are the rules under which any individual may attempt to better his or her place within a society. Depending upon the culture and the time period, morals have been used to suppress as well as uplift individuals. In this sense, morality is a subjective term that is defined by each individual as they pursue a "righteous" life. Some may believe altruism to be the way to a perfect life, while others seek gain only for themselves. Those in power have quite often promoted one sort of ethical life in the populace, while following a different form of virtuous behavior themselves. They will insist that the governed eschew violence and murder, but use such tactics to further their own ends. They consider lying and theft to be crimes, but lie and steal to keep themselves ahead of the pack. What such people see as "right" is their own success at the expense of others.

Due to the continued divergent dichotomy between the rhetoric and the conduct of our institutions of Government and Religion, people have become embittered and apathetic toward the ideal of pursuing a moral life. The speaking of virtuous words is not enough to make one virtuous. It is also necessary to be ethical in action. Unfortunately, history has shown that institutions have a propensity for not practicing what they preach, and the standard modern belief is that traditional "morals" are for suckers. It is a pardonable mistake to assume that it is necessary to dispose of ethical principles with the corrupted figurehead of those principles. But one must always keep in mind that governments and religions are simply shells that house the virtues, and are not the virtues themselves. Metaphorically, institutions are the hardware that allows access to the software; they are the stereos that allow us to listen to the music. Although institutions are important as tools, they are not to be confused with the morals that they serve.

At the inception of their government, the Founding Fathers of the United States of America formulated a mission statement that spelled out their ethical principles quite clearly: the just claim of all men (the word "men" having a most strict definition) to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." They recognized in their Declaration that any Government was simply an instrument to affect the stated rights. However, they also believed these prerogatives to have been imparted by the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God," which was to be the conclusive "reason" for their claim. Who could dispute the wills of Nature and God, the final arbiters of objectivity?

It has been a mistake of religious institutions to trust in the Word of God to carry the unquestionable authority for human morality. The problem with the "because I said so" mentality of religious doctrine can be seen in any conversation with a two year old; the question "why?" is repeated infinitely, and can never be satisfied. Eventually most children lose this insatiable questioning as they learn to accept the final (yet unfulfilling) response of "because a parent/god/higher power/authority figure says that it is so." Yet we can see in the way that people approach morality that this "ultimate answer" may end the questioning, but it does not go very far toward instilling the desired behavior in the populace. People know the rhetoric, but they have a very loose understanding (if any at all) of why they should follow the rules of an ethical society. The human mind is naturally constructed for reasoning, and if satisfying answers are not forthcoming, the mind will discard the postulate (in this case, Morality). In a world where it is obvious that people get ahead through murder, theft, and deceit, a person would have to be crazy to not do likewise. The tangible results of earthly success are much more enticing than the supposed possibility that one will attain rewards in some unproved afterlife. A concrete reason must be formulated before moral life-styles can be enforced.

The rise of scientific inquiry has gone a long way to dissolve the iron binds that religion has had upon human minds. Truth is no longer dictated by belief or faith. The Scientific Method has shown that the only objective truths are those that can be quantified and displayed for any individual possessing a semblance of consciousness and perception. Anything that cannot be proven in such a way is subjective belief, or at best, a theory. Thus morals are a subjective contrivance that any may choose to believe or disbelieve at no true cost. After all, if religion is dismissed, and therefore Heaven and Hell (or any other form of positive and negative reinforcement) are no longer present as Incentive and Impediment, what reasons are there for following a virtuous life? Science has not been forthcoming in producing any new options or replacements for the morals provided by religion. Science can get us to the moon, but it cannot insure that, once we get there, we will not kill the co-pilot for stealing all of the Tang. There is no mathematical formula, or simple reproducable experiment to prove that any given ethical principle is objectively better than another. What place does morality have in our society if all ethical appeals are subjective laws dictated by an institution that wishes nothing more than to suppress the masses for the benefit of a few elite?

It is necessary to understand that morals are not necessarily about how things are, but about how we wish things to be. Instilling and following a set of morals is a conscious attempt to take control of our animal instincts. The type of morality one chooses to follow dictates the type of world a person prefers to live in. One may decide that the most base laws of life ("survival of the fittest") are to be one's ethical ideals, but this decision has consequences that portend a society that is no society at all. It is possible to objectively construct a set of morals that will guide humans toward a sustained social structure, but to do so one must first subjectively choose the sort of social structure that is desired. It is up to each individual to decide how they want the world to be, and then stringently adhere to the ideal set of principles necessary to attain that world. Thus, the concrete goal motivating one to behave in a proscribed moral fashion is the eventual attainment of the sort of world one wishes to live in. By applying a bit of logic and insight, one may objectively begin choosing which virtues will best lead to the desired society. It is not really that difficult, given a remedial knowledge of history, current events, and human nature, to see where a given set of values will lead.

Although one may not be religious, or follow a particular social philosophy, one is still making daily moral decisions that affect the world, regardless of whether or not one "believes" in what one is doing. People whose lives are bereft of moral considerations need to take a good look at what they are doing and trace the path toward the eventual societal outcome that their behavior is leading towards. This is not to say that those that profess to leading virtuous lives are free and clear. Even devout worshipers of a benign deity are not necessarilly paying heed to the proclaimed tenets. All of humanity needs to be more aware of the disparaty between what is said and what is done, and work towards being more insightful of our motivations. If we want to live in a perfect world, we have to start behaving in a manner that will bring that world about.