'The unexamined life is not worth living,' declared Socrates. Most accurately so. The examination of our lives is indispensable to the quest for ethical enlightenment. Ethical enlightenment? This variety of enlightenment refers to the universal morality of a specific situation quintessentially, regardless of individual or community perspectives. Or instead, what is the righteousness of an act when it is irrespective of the circumstances, outlooks and the time of the decision?
Take the Gurkha Regiment of the Indian Army for example (which has preceded the independence of India). Regarding the corps as a being, we can discern a stark change in the regiment's perspective upon a situation. For instance, ad prius independence, the battalion's views upon a circumstance (say, firing on the local denizens of India) were substantially modified after independence (by not firing on the locals). However, at both periods, the Gurkha Regiment maintains that its morality was always ethical. However, the predicament has not changed. So how has the virtue of a situation changed?
Morality is a constant derived from our evolutionary behaviour and religious attitude. How can the equivalent difficulty be right and wrong at different times and circumstances? The simplistic answer would be based upon a person's perspective and approach to a problem. For example, one might accept that the death penalty to a murderer is justified. However, the same might be consumed by wrath for the killing of an innocent civilian. The person may explain his views upon the ethicality of this problem based upon his perspective that murderers must be killed and civilians must not be killed. However, his views may change from person-to-person and time-to-time, even problem-to-problem.
This 'morality' is not ethicality. It is one's perspective, prone to change and duly so. This question may seem as if trivial to some. Yet one must realise that morality makes up the essence of the law. Legality is based on morality. If the thoughts of eminent personalities found our laws' ethicality, we are subject to the morals of a select committee of people, which may be subject to amendment. But this is not morality! The all-inclusive morality! It does not change until the end of time.
We must understand what the parameters of universal morality are to dawn upon a truly infinite society of our fiction. We must find out the essential truth of right or wrong. Since, who says murder is immoral, who says social service is? Why is it so? Humanity is faced with a barrage of questions, but no satisfactory answer. From deontology to consequentialism, absolutism to utilitarianism; philosophers have tried strenuously. Yet to no avail. The question remains unanswered.
We may think that the philosophers know more than common men on this subject, but in fact, philosophers are common men. Hence, it is imperative that we answer the question of our time: What are the universal parameters of morality?
'Unanswered questions aren't threats; they're challenges and catalysts'
Take the Gurkha Regiment of the Indian Army for example (which has preceded the independence of India). Regarding the corps as a being, we can discern a stark change in the regiment's perspective upon a situation. For instance, ad prius independence, the battalion's views upon a circumstance (say, firing on the local denizens of India) were substantially modified after independence (by not firing on the locals). However, at both periods, the Gurkha Regiment maintains that its morality was always ethical. However, the predicament has not changed. So how has the virtue of a situation changed?
Morality is a constant derived from our evolutionary behaviour and religious attitude. How can the equivalent difficulty be right and wrong at different times and circumstances? The simplistic answer would be based upon a person's perspective and approach to a problem. For example, one might accept that the death penalty to a murderer is justified. However, the same might be consumed by wrath for the killing of an innocent civilian. The person may explain his views upon the ethicality of this problem based upon his perspective that murderers must be killed and civilians must not be killed. However, his views may change from person-to-person and time-to-time, even problem-to-problem.
This 'morality' is not ethicality. It is one's perspective, prone to change and duly so. This question may seem as if trivial to some. Yet one must realise that morality makes up the essence of the law. Legality is based on morality. If the thoughts of eminent personalities found our laws' ethicality, we are subject to the morals of a select committee of people, which may be subject to amendment. But this is not morality! The all-inclusive morality! It does not change until the end of time.
We must understand what the parameters of universal morality are to dawn upon a truly infinite society of our fiction. We must find out the essential truth of right or wrong. Since, who says murder is immoral, who says social service is? Why is it so? Humanity is faced with a barrage of questions, but no satisfactory answer. From deontology to consequentialism, absolutism to utilitarianism; philosophers have tried strenuously. Yet to no avail. The question remains unanswered.
We may think that the philosophers know more than common men on this subject, but in fact, philosophers are common men. Hence, it is imperative that we answer the question of our time: What are the universal parameters of morality?
'Unanswered questions aren't threats; they're challenges and catalysts'
Comments
Post a Comment