RemoteUser
Posts: 2854
Joined: 5/10/2011
Status: offline
|
Morality defines the personal intrinsic value an action possesses to an individual. Shared values create the illusion of common morality, although there is no practical way to view it as an absolute with the inherent factors to consider. That's why an individual who attempts to adhere to a moral code or practice may not be able to relate to all of its finer points.
That value is usually filtered in the most basic terms as "good" or "bad", and often results in the assignment of a reaction that is weighed at some level (conscious or unconscious) and found as possessing merit relating to the action in question.
The reaction does not have to be violent, any more than the value must be viewed as wrong.
The point, if you will, of morality is to allow definition of the self in relation to the perceived actions and behaviours of everyone else. You don't judge another human being as being bad because you need to define them; you do it to define how you wish to react to the person you are judging. Call it inverted introspection, if the simplification helps.
Viewed this way, in direct relation to violence, the process must be viewed backwards. A reaction of violence came from the perceived measurement of the victim by the aggressor. To give an example couched in personalized terms (although this is mere hyperbole):
I hit someone because I reacted to a negative feeling.
That negative feeling came from a negative perception of the person I hit.
That negative perception came from my translation of the other person's behaviour.
This aggressive result is a defense mechanism built in to handle a perceived threat. It is not the ideal result, nor is it the only one that could be available. Take the example to the next stage, with more details - say the aggressor is a policeman who shoots a criminal threatening the life of a third individual. From the viewpoint of the policeman:
- they shot someone
- they did it because they felt it was the right response to the threat that the criminal posed to the third person
- the threat made by the criminal to the third party was perceived as wrong
- the criminal was wrong because he was challenging the moral code the policeman has chosen to enforce
The perceived threat here is made by the criminal against the policeman's chosen code of morality. While the third party is the intended victim, the criminal has also challenged the policeman by threatening to act in a way that goes against the moral code being presented.
This process can also be a positive one. Consider marriage with the same hyperbole template.
I married someone.
I married them because the act of marriage feels right to me.
It feels right to marry this person because they make me feel loved and happy.
It is good and right to be loved and happy, and this person makes me feel this way.
Sorry if I oversimplified the process here, I just like to keep things simple when providing definition and explanation.
_____________________________
There is nothing worse than being right. Instead of being right, then, try to be open. It is more difficult, and more rewarding.
|
What good is morality anyway? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread