Part Two on a Moral Dilemma

Today's blog deals with morals and is the second part of something that I started on Monday. You may want to go back and read Monday's article to get up to speed on the issue of Morals, at least morals discussed on this site. This is not an exhaustive study or a definitive source for the issues of morals and ethics. This "series", if you will, is really more questions than answers. And my intent is to cause all of us to think about how we come to decisions and what leads us to actions.

We began by discussing two women; one is the octuplet mother who has fourteen children and is unwed and unable to provide care for her children. But she wanted many children, so she had many children. The other woman is a sixty eight year old lady who has been married twenty three times, the last marriage admittingly was a publicity stunt. I then asked the question of which woman is more immoral. Then I asked several questions and gave my two cents worth on some of the issues of morals.

And that brings us to where we are currently, to a point of which I really must admit, I do not know where to pick up at. The topic of morals is so deep and philosophically broad. And every question asked about morals leads to another question. We can even cross into the realm of physical, spiritual, and mental. For starters though, I think we need to examine the question of which of the two women mentioned at the beginning of the last couple of blogs, is the most immoral. And what determines our answer? Is it even possible to be more or less immoral? Is that like being more or less pregnant? More or less deceased? And are we qualified to pass judgement as to which woman we feel, personally, is more immoral? If we are qualified, to what degree are we qualified and by what code are we using to impose judgement, even if it is only a silent, personal judgement?

And remember that are discussing morals, not reason; although the two can be difficult to separate in some instances. Our reasoning to eat is not a matter of morals. The reasoning that leads us to eat, comes from fulfilling a physical need and fulfilling a basic need that requires to be met, in order that we survive. But what we eat, and how much we eat, is a matter of morals. For instance, let's take cannibalism. It is obviously considered immoral in most every society in existence today. And the main reason cannibalism is frowned upon is due to the fact that to fulfill the requirements of a cannibalistic diet or ritual, a human life must be taken. I have read many times that cannibalistic societies are the lowest form of societies in the history of mankind. My question is, why is cannibalism looked upon so badly and with such contempt? I know why I find it detestable, but why do entire civilizations frown upon it? What moral code is in place in every single individual in a given society, that makes cannibalism so "uncivilized"? And how has this come about? Is the code for or against cannibalism based on emotion? If such code isn't based on feelings and emotions, then it must be based on moral decisions. And who determined that those moral decisions are correct? What standard was used when developing such code? Was it a majority rule type of thing? Did a chieftain declare eating people to be good or bad? What was his decision based on?

I am not pro cannibal. Do not read that into what I am writing here. I am only asking questions to make us consider the bigger picture of our moral codes and our actions. And I am asking who makes the rules and writes the codes of conduct. And by who's standard have we set our moral codes by?

So we have an idea as to how the act of eating is moral and how the same act is performed due to reasoning. Hopefully I painted a picture of how muddy the water of morals can be if we were to be "technical" and logical about the issue. And I do this to make us consider our individual morals as well as our society's moral code, or laws; which are two different things, but we will avoid that for the here and now. But back to the logical thing and the technical, how do we come to our moral codes? And are our moral codes consistent?

For instance, many people in this country are vegetarians and vegans. Some for health reasons, some for moral reasons. Let's take those who come to the dietary decision due to their moral code. Not speaking for all vegetarians and vegans, many decide on their non animal diet, due to the moral code that they have instilled in their lifestyles. They deem all life sacred and not to be taken. But would a dietary moral conscious vegan swat a mosquito that was sucking the blood from a capillary on their arm? But that is a different subject, I guess. Let's focus on the dietary issue. Let's say that you had a dinner party and you had a vegan friend coming over as one of the guests. Let's say that you prepared a big batch of spaghetti. You used ground beef and real cheese in all of the spaghetti, but separated some just before your guests arrived, placing a smaller portion in a bowl for your vegan guest. You then tell your vegan guest that the smaller bowl is his and that you used all soy/tofu kind of stuff when preparing his meal; so to help him maintain his personal moral code of a non animal or animal product diet. Everyone eats the meal and expresses gratitude for being fed and all of the usual social graces exhibited at a dinner party. You then tell your guests that you have an announcement and that all of the food was cooked in the same manner and that the vegan friend had indeed ate animal and animal products. What moral codes are broken in this situation? You told a lie. You were deceptive. You did what you wanted to do despite the feelings or morals of those around you. You satisfied your individual desires. Your vegan friend now hates you for causing him to break his self instilled moral code just to satisfy your own whim. Your friends with carnivorous diets are even appalled, even though they were not caused any negligence in their moral code, or directly affected by your decision. You are the bad guy at your own dinner party? You just played a joke that was funny to you, personally.

But what makes you the bad guy in this scenario? Why is their right to fulfill their desires and their moral code, greater than your desires to fulfill your own moral code? We discussed that we all have moral codes and that even by not adopting a moral code, you have a moral code. Everyone at this dinner party believes that you acted as if you had no moral code when you tricked your vegan friend; but we know that it is impossible to not have a moral code. So why is their code the correct code and why is your code wrong, even though it appears as if you have no code? By what standards were the two different codes developed? Who deemed which code more or less moral? To what degree was morality breached?

Using this same argument, it is impossible to determine if our octuplet mother of fourteen kids, or the most married lady from Indiana is the most immoral. If we are not certain why we have moral codes or who deemed these codes "good" or "bad", than we cannot determine which moral code is more or less; we cannot determine which woman is more immoral. At least not by using reason. And not if we are consistent with our moral codes, not suppressing our personal codes of conduct due to feelings or emotions.

So it is difficult to make a decision as to which woman is the more immoral, even if we have an answer inside our own head. Even if we have an opinion as to which is more immoral, if that is possible, we are not certain as to what makes them wrong if we consider much of the logic and reasoning by which many of our moral codes are drawn up and practiced in our society. Without an answer as to who is the definitive creator and "maker" of our moral code, it is impossible to answer as to which woman is more or less immoral, if immoral at all. Unless we use feelings and emotions and suspend our moral codes due to such, we cannot determine the issue of morality in this case. Not if we logically use the argument for our moral codes.

We are all basically creatures of our own, personal moral codes. We have no method of determining the morality of our own codes or the codes of others if we have no one central person, who must be universally correct and moral, to determine one such universal set of morals or one accurate moral code. Otherwise it is survival of the fittest, morally, and we are pitting all of our individual moral codes against each others individual moral codes.

So the answer to the original question of which woman is more immoral is now a mute point. Or is it? Friday, I will try to wrap up this moral code stuff and give my thoughts on how we can be more certain on things moral.