Moral-less or (That's One of the Best Puns I've Ever Made)

Okay, remember back to my third or fourth post? Of course you don't, but I hosted a poll asking what you wanted to hear me talk about. The winner was morals, but I completely ignored you.

Well, I've decided to come back to it, after being informed in psychology class of much of the history. It really is fascinating stuff, which is why I'm going to be starting out this post by giving you a brief summary of it. If you don't want to read any of it, or you already know it, just skip the part in between the lines.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some time ago (the scientific term, obviously), some guy asked some other guy to decide what constituted a moral choice and what made something immoral. This second guy, named Kohlberg, decided that the reasons behind the choices made the difference, rather than your decision itself. Here's a chart of what he decided was moral:

Stage One   {Punishment- It only matters to you if you get punished for it. If you do not, you'll do it
                   {Reward- It only matters to you if you get something for it.
Stage Two  {Opinion of Others- What others think of what you do, and what others do matters most
                    {Rules/Laws (Blind)- Follow the rules, even if you don't understand
Stage Three {Rules/Law(Understand)- Follow the rules/laws because you understand the logic behind it
                    {Personal Philosophies- You follow what you believe is right and your ideals

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, I know exactly what you are thinking; Mr. Valett, did you just shove that in there to pad out your post?

NO I DID NOT.

More importantly, you may be thinking, 'There are so many flaws there I don't know where to start'. And you'd be right. Mr. Kohlberg's research pool consisted of a bunch of small white rich boys, not exactly a wide and varied one.

Hey, you've heard of Hitler, right? The current world demonizes the man, and for good reason. He eradicated over 11 million people from the face of the world, and that's only civilians murdered by his orders. He also incited a World War that killed many more millions.

Hey, you've heard of Jesus, right? The current world idolizes the man, and for good reason. He stood for peace and love, and died for other people's sins, if Christianity is to be believed.

According to Kohlberg, they would both be in the same level of the moral spectrum. According to him, Hitler would be as moral as they come.

And when you think about it, there is a lot of solid reasoning behind it. Hitler didn't look at the Jewish people and recognize that they were like any other group; he saw a group of people who he felt were responsible for the downfall of his nation, and all he wanted was to restore his nation to greatness. And amass power for himself. That too.

I'm reminded of a quote that really resonated with me from Neil Gaiman's American Gods. It is, I quote, (and don't worry, it may be from midway through the book, but it has no plot relevance.)

"Look- here is a good man, good by his own lights and the lights of his friends; he is faithful and true to his wife, he adores and lavishes attention on his little children, he cares about his country, he does his job punctiliously, as best he can. So, efficiently, and good-naturedly, he exterminates Jews... and if there is anything he feels bad about, it is that he still allows the gassing of vermin to affect him. Were he a truly good man, he knows, he would feel nothing but joy, as the earth is cleansed of its pests."

And no, I'm still not just padding. So, can morals be defined by the reasons behind them? Maybe. The moral differences between societies certainly support that, because no two societies are exactly the same in what they think is moral.

So, I started thinking, it can't be the actions that are moral, and it might not be the reasons that are moral, so what is?

Then I realized that it didn't matter.

Morals are just a way for people to reassure them of their decisions. But in the end, the decisions are made. We have to live with the consequences, whether or not the choice was made in good faith.

Recently there was a charity collection at my school. I decided to donate quite a sum of my own money, and didn't think much of it. But then I thought about it. Was I doing it for the people, or for what others would think of my decision? I still haven't completely decided, but that money was donated regardless.

Even if the devil cured all diseases to torture the one baby orphan who still had them, the world would be a much better place for it. So do morals matter at all? If I donated that money to make myself feel like a better person, does that make me a bad person?

Does it?

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J.Valett