Morality Part Two

So what is morality? One definition is that morality is a system, the aim of which is to distinguish between what is good or right and what is bad or wrong. Many religions and philosophies have attempted to define a universal morality, one that would apply to everyone throughout all times. The problem with a universal, timeless moral framework is that times change, as well as the people living in those times. Situations differ from one part of the world to another and across cultural groups and traditions. One way to look at morality is as a codification of behaviors that will ensure the survival of a group as well as to promote minimal friction among the individuals in a group.

 As the circumstances of a group changes, the view of what is good and what is bad in the context of the group may change. In tribal societies in an environment of scarcity, it might be eminently moral to massacre a neighboring tribe that is encroaching on its territory and competing for its resources. In this situation, the survival of the tribe is of paramount importance, while "living in harmony" with a neighboring tribe is not. In fact, "living in harmony" might in this context be considered immoral, in that "being nice" could result in starvation and even the extinction of the tribe. Eventually innovations like farming, division of labor, specialization, domestication of animals etc, might lead to a change in circumstances whereby a treaty with the neighboring tribe might make more sense than risking lives by waging war. Trade with the neighboring competitor and both are richer. Another example might be in the category of marriage. In a small isolated society, men with multiple wives would help propagate the numbers of the tribe. One man could impregnate several women simultaneously, while if it was the reverse, one woman could only be pregnant with one man's child at a time, no matter how many husbands that she had. As time passes, and the tribal numbers become more stable, it might be more advantageous for the continued stability of the tribe for one man to commit to one woman only.

 The point is that as circumstances changed in these examples, what would be considered right or wrong changed and evolved. In most societies religions emerged to codify and enforce the group morality. Sometimes the moral codes were written down and remained in force even as the circumstances changed. Sometimes the religious adherents abandoned the old morality, which remained as a mere curiosity in the holy books, or they tenaciously held onto it with no clear idea why it was "bad" other than it was the edict of their god. Few religious people these days would defend slavery, despite the clear endorsement of it in several holy books, while many hold on to a view of gay people for no other reason than "God says so".

It is my view that rather than morality being handed down from on high and then accepted by the masses, morality developed and evolved according to local needs and was only later written down or ascribed to the divine, mainly as a method to coerce uniformity. Human beings are very good at figuring out what they need to do to ensure their own survival and the survival of the group. They might not always agree and morality is far from universal, but it is clearly something that arises from human socity, and not from the heavens.