What is Morality?--shaman sun

Ayn Rand might have us think that to be moral, you must first consider yourself. You, who are sitting here, reading this, allow all to be experienced. Without you, the individual, nothing else would be quite the way it is. The ability to love, laugh, think and create are in your powers—why would you seek to dismantle, or discredit this being? Point taken, and wonderfully written. However, the question persists, and as the battle of ideology and perspective rages on, what is morality, and what is it dependant upon?

We consider ourselves to be inherently ethical beings. It exists, but whether or not is fabricated, or whether or not it comes from a source outsideourselves is what is often debated. In the case of the New Atheists and the Christian Apologists, a few claims are made. These claims may both be missing critical pieces in their argument that bring us back to the start, once again.

The first claim is that of the Christian Apologist—Ethics are what steps us beyond the animal, and what gives us unique traits. Our capacity to love is other-worldly, and one that cannot be seen in other species. More specifically, it is a trait that cannot be seen even in other cultures that do not stem from Christianity. Our ability to choose love is our gift, and our ultimate responsibility.

Aside from a number of biased arguments—that compassion does not exist strongly on other religions and cultures, and that it does not exist in nature, this worldview requires a belief in the super natural. Case in point, it actually asks a lot of the convert to consider. It asks, in fact, of a whole other world, a world of supernatural, holy nature, to exist in order for it to be true. The ability to define, prove and otherwise accurately understand this other-worldliness has yet to be shown. To add the old argument of Occams Razor—the simpler the cause, the more likely it is true. This may not give us a sound argument, but it adds to the probability that to attach an entire metaphysical world to a view of ourselves may not be necessary for ethics, and compassion to exist.

The other arguments, that compassion does not exist strongly in other religion, and that it does not exist in nature, are both wildly inaccurate. If one is familiar with the Buddhist schools, Mahayana is the “vehicle” of the Buddha, which is love. The ultimate reality of the universe is love itself, which is Buddha-nature. Good works, works of compassion enable the practitioner to step beyond himself and slowly dissolve the ego. “Karma” by any sense is action, and not necessarily ethical punishment. To a Buddhist, good or bad karma is really a matter of how much of a boundary you put up around yourself- how much suffering you inflict on others, and how much you feel that suffering. To open up, to purify karma is to dissolve the ego boundary over the lifetimes, ultimately being able to love unconditionally and see the universe as one, non-conceptually. This may appear grandiose, and it very well may be, but it is another take on ethics, and a prime example of love existing far beyond the limits of the Judeo-Christian culture.

Does compassion exist in nature? Can an animal be ethical? Well, there is plenty of evidence for the behavior of compassion, that is, for compassionate action. Nature is not so brutal as to turn a cold cheek to all forms of nurturing. In fact, without some co-existence, the entire eco system would collapse. From an biological point of view, nature is trying to survive, but a species cannot survive without the help of its environment-including other species. Daniel Quinn, other of "The Story of B" and "Ishmael" describes it as the "Law of Limited Competition." This means that no species necessarily dominates over another, not to an extreme. When it does, it throws off the delicate balance of the ecosystem, and the whole system collapses. One could see nature as a continual reharmonization according to environmental and genetic changes. Harmony is key, balance is vital. It is not, as the traditional view portrays, violent and merciless. So, seeing nature as harmonic to this extent, are we surprised that our species has the capacity to be harmonic? Are we shocked that we are able to care for one another, just as the wolf does for her cubs? I will leave this point at that question.

To move on to the New Atheists, they often enough do not go with this naturalistic argument. Instead, they tend to go to some “innate sense” that humans have that provides them ethics. What is this sense? If they are referring to the naturalistic argument, that of nurture and compassion being a very part of nature, then this makes sense. Yet, they often do not refer to it. It remains a hazy, roughly undefined description of our “human ethics” our innate value system, or something to that extent. It would be much appreciative if the New Atheists cultivated the vast data to reveal that nature is nurture, as much as it is violent. Instead, it seems that the New Atheists often call upon the classical and traditional argument for ethics—that of a reasonable one. Kant’s “categorical imperative” come to mind here, the highly abstract system of ethics, of deciding what is right. Without diving deeply into this, it can simply be said that to be ethical mustn’t require a high degree of conceptual skills. It may include that, for sure, but it may not necessitate it.

Instead, what if there are varying levels of ethical development? What if the harmonized, intricate balance of nature is our primordial ethical soup? One in which we emerge from, and cultivate our own artificial reflections of that balance, slowly, surely understanding the harmony from whence we came? Then, there may be a gradual emergence of ethics, one where ethics are cultivated over time. We have a biological urge to care- for sure. A mother and her newborn are one example. These are not “ultimate” facts in that they are sometimes untrue. Child abuse, violence, murder and countless “unethical” behavior also exist. Yet we are still compassionate, no matter what society we come from, no matter what age, there is care involved. What does this say of us? That is at least a part of our nature. Biologically, we are programmed to have compassion, relationship. We are also violent and territorial. Our nifty development, the intellect, is by far a curious emergence. It has allowed us to use reason to make decisions, to conceptualize our environment, and even be self-aware. Our self-awareness may have a direct influence on our ethics.

The second emergence may be a familial sense of ethics- next of kin. We are close to our family and friends. This can be likened to an “ethnocentric” view. Be nice to you, if you’re one of us. A “worldcentric” view develops according to exposure to other cultures, people and places, as well as our own cognitive development. How self aware are we? Do we see how we set up boundaries to separate ourselves from others, and thus feel protective of our walls, and violent towards outsiders? This stripping of the boundary is indicative of higher levels of ethics—ones that the Bodhisattvas speak of, and even of the ethics the New Atheists care for: stripping away of our cultural conditions to see underlying connections. This is the vital link that creates an ethical society. All in all, we can see an emergence of ethics as that of something that goes beyond God vs. Godless—it is an inherently complex nature, in which some parts are born of genetics, biology and environment. Others are due to culture, both artificial and natural recognition of others in relation to the individual. Ethics is a part of a greater, grander development of the mind, of the heart, of the human being—who is always and increasingly growing and evolving. These days, that evolution is a cultural, psychological one. It is one of increasing complexity—the question is, can we see it that way, or must we see it so dualistically?