Morality, Science, Religion

The idea that an intrinsic, universal morality exists within us seems to me to be quaint indeed, almost quixotic. If it were to be true, insofar as a set of moral values are imbued within all of us congenitally, then I see little reason why the World could not have turned out better; but truth is, the World is in a state of disrepair, and steadily worsening. Every act of malice seems to point only towards my belief that the morality is a fluid, subjective process. We derive our set of moral values based on our personal experiences. And I believe, too, that reciprocal altruism, or "do unto others what you want others do unto you", does play an ancilliary role in shaping our morality.

There is an incredible tendency for people to confuse the normative and the positive. While it might be arguably true that, as far as morality is concerned, there definitely is some sort of objective standard we ought to follow, reality entails a rather different scenario. How we are able to discern the right from wrong wihout a proper, meaningful influence, or a sound education is baffling indeed. Do these people mean to say that, before we can walk, or learn the art of communication, we are already garnished with a set of internalised moral code, that is invariable from one individual to the other?

To me it seems queer, for it is extremely difficult to ascertain and even justify the independant nature of morality we all possess. Is it right to say that, every individual have common code of morality, nonwithstanding differences in personality, upbringing and external influences?

Take the case to the extreme. Is it not true that everyone recognises that cetain acts are unpardonably opprobrious? Acts such as murder, rape or even robbery? I would like to say that, as usual the distinction between normative and positive is smudged. And in this case even if we would like to acknowledge in unison the repugnance of such acts, clearly reality doesnt concur. And if we were to have an imbued sense of morality, does it not make sense when there are individuals who stray and commit on intent, knowing fully well the deploration of their acts?And of course, there are even cases whereby serial killers find no wrong in what they do, despite the sheer,naked brutality of their crimes. What has happened to this inherent sense of morality? Has it been casually jettisoned for something more arbitrary, more self-referencing and comfortable?

Moral views might be tangential, or even overlapping, but that does not mean morality in its entirety is congruent. For if we were to assert that a certain common set of moral views is internalised in a child since birth, then this must mean therefore, there is universality and consistency among all individuals, but reality is far from the that. What I am suggesting, is that the underlying reason that actually subdues the barbarianism, the streak of malice within us, and that propels the seemingly orchestrated human nature towards attaining the "standard" as aforementioned, is what many scholars termed as "recirocal altruism". We look at murder and grimace in fear at its raw cruelty. We look at rape and we are shaken with apoplectic rage at the foul nature of it itself. Why so? It is highly probable that we see ourselves, subconsciously,as the victim and our brains are tuned to such a hypothetical scenario when we begin to see vicariously through the plights of victims, and being to experience the feeling of being in their shoes. We look at mass muder such as pogroms or even WW2, and we are filled with sorrow and condemnation because we imagine a world of violence, and subsequently a bitter life of struggle that is elucidated, all the more, by the moving accounts of survivors and victims. Indirectly, our perceptions and sensories are heightened and we take the place of these victims.