Skip to main content

Minimum Standard

 You can't define your morality by criminal law.


Ok?


The 'criminal threshold' (my term, as far as I know) delineates the minimum standard of behaviour we will tolerate as a civilization.  Crimes - such as fraud, arson, assault - are unacceptable behaviours, and our social contract is such that we will not turn a blind eye to their committal or let individuals decide for themselves when they may be justified.  They are simply not done, or at least, we try to make sure they are not done.


One is not a 'good person' because one does not commit crimes or, to broaden the scope, violate the law of the land.  It's not like everything below the criminal threshold is heinous and everything above is saintly.  You can't think that way.  A moral person strives to bring about the most good and live in adherence with correct principals.  There are many acts that, while legal, are all the same immoral.


Test yourself.  Test your morality.  Do you live according to principals?  Try to think of an act that you would like to commit, but will not, because it is wrong.  A legal act.  It's a total cop out to pick something illegal: "Oh, I would like to kill such and such a politician, because he's such an idiot and is making our country a worse place, but that is wrong."  Come on.  Of course it's wrong.  You are not moral because you won't do the worst thing possible.  Nor are you moral if you abstain from wrongs that you don't care about.


But what is something that is totally legal that you will not do?  Something that may provide you with some sort of pleasure or catharsis, or improve your circumstances, or make life easier for you.  But that you realize is wrong.  Perhaps it's certain financial practices, use of certain language, medical procedures, corporal violations in any form, substance use, occupational promotion, etc.  Can you identify one?  Or several?


If not, take a good look at yourself.  I would submit you are not a moral individual.  I would submit that restraint is an essential part of mortality.


How do you act when you are free to do so without negative consequence?  That will define your morality.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Haters Gon' Hate

This post was written before the protests and killing in Charlottesville (and subsequent fallout).  I thought it important for the reader to know that this is not a reaction. If I'm going to write a blog called “On Morality”, I think it's only fair for the readers that I lay out what I mean by “morality”. So here it is: morality is the understanding of what is right and what is wrong, and the behaviours mandated by that understanding. This isn't a definition that I pulled from a dictionary, or one employed by any authority on the subject. This is my definition, formed out of my cognitive ruminations, subject to change, open to interpretation. (One of my firmly-held beliefs, reflected in the URL of this blog, is there is a lot of knowledge and understanding to be gained by sitting and pondering.) Allow me to shift gears abruptly. What I really sat down to write about was the use of the word “hate”. Or rather, the overuse , as I see it, of that word. ...

I'm Not Sure

I'm not entirely sure what purpose this blog will serve. I'm not sure of what I'll write about. I'm not sure who the intended audience is. I'm not sure why I've titled the blog what I've titled it; I'm not even sure that I'll ever write about morality at all. This is just something I feel I need to do. The pull is there; I know I have to write something before I explode. So let's just follow this and see what it becomes.