Maggie Gaster

4/4/08
Eta
Draft 4

Morality

Question: Where does morality come from? What is its purpose?

Society tries to fix its problems by using religious philosophies to determine

moral solutions to things. However, the problem is that most of the religious morals that

people are trying to use don’t have relevance in today’s society. The moral values that

dictate America’s society today were primarily founded on religious Christian

philosophies. But the world has changed significantly since the advent of Christianity,

and we need to create new morals to fit our current lifestyles.

There is no way to prove a moral or ethic right or wrong, society can’t ever be

sure that what it’s doing is the best thing to do. Morals are not strict barriers that separate

good and bad and wrong and right. They’re mostly guidelines to help us keep things in

perspective. They should not be treated like laws, but for some reason society often treats

them that way. Nietzsche believed that the morals we use today were created by ancient

societies in order to create balance and harmony. The societies claimed that God created

the morals and wanted everyone to abide by them. The fact that god said it, gave the

morals esteem, nobody wanted to go against the “words of god.” Unfortunately, the

morals stuck around because religions were created around them. “A code of morals was

nothing more than a system of customs, law and ideas which had its origin in the

distinctive desire of some definite race to live under conditions which best subserved its

own” (Mencken, 44). What Nietzsche meant by this was that the morals we’re familiar
with served a purpose when they were created, and that purpose was specifically for the

society that created them. The morals were created to suit the needs of that ancient

society, but not the needs of our current society. Therefore, the morals should be changed

to fit the requirements of today’s society.

According to Jewish philosophy, morals and ethics are completely made up. There

is no definite right or wrong way to live your life, because you can’t prove morals or

ethics with science. They are merely guidelines that people created for certain purposes in

society. “Ethical principles are not discovered, but invented. Logical positivism has gone

so far as to deny any cognitive significance to ethical beliefs, since, unlike scientific

beliefs they are not verifiable by empirical methods” (Wurzburger, 41- 42). Essentially,

ethics are made up. The ethics that we live by today, were decided upon by someone or

some group of people a long time ago, and we should not treat them as if they were the

absolute right way to behave. Unlike some kind of mathematical formula that can be

proven correct using calculations. However, people do view ethics and morals as

something definite and true, as if the word of some divine being could prove it to be a

cold hard fact.

Nietzsche proposed that instead of living by a moral code created thousands of

years ago, we should create our own individual moralities to suit ourselves, and the

society we live in, unfortunately, he forgot to think about caring for people other than

ourselves. His opinion was that we needed to protect ourselves first and foremost in order

to survive and that we needed as much personal gain as possible. “In a word, he should

put behind him the morality invented by some dead race to make its own progress easy

and pleasant, and credited to some man-made god to give it authority, and put in the place
of this a workable personal morality based upon his own power of distinguishing between

the things which will benefit him, and the things that will injure him” (Mencken, 55). He

believed that we should create our morals strictly to keep ourselves from being injured,

and to make our individual lives abundant regardless of how that impacts other people.

Sadly, if everyone did that and only looked out for their own lives, people would only

help each other if it was convenient or in some way beneficial to them. People wouldn’t

think about the effect that their actions had on others if those actions were for their own

benefit. A lot of people don’t think about others when they make decisions for their own

benefits, and that’s why there is so much crime and corruption in today’s society. So,

Nietzsche’s idea is a rather selfish, and inconsiderate one.

The Dalai Lama says that people can’t help but want the best for themselves. It’s

something that we can’t control for some reason and it’s natural. He says that we

shouldn’t be ashamed of it because it’s part of being human. “I think that every human

being has an innate sense of “I.” We cannot explain why that feeling is there, but it is.

Along with it comes a desire for happiness and a wish to overcome suffering. This is

quite justified” (Lama, 20). Nietzsche would argue that the feeling of “I” comes from the

underlying will to survive and to be the best. “In all the complex whirlpool of the

phenomena we call human life, the mere will to survive is at the bottom of everything”

(Mencken, 36). Nietzsche claims that every human action is a survival instinct. He would

argue that to attain happiness, one must meet their basic needs, but they must also feel

superior to other people. The more power people feel like they have, the happier they are.

Because power makes people feel like they have control over the happiness they can

generate for themselves. When people have the ability to generate more happiness for
themselves, it makes them feel superior and powerful, which in turn brings them more

happiness. That feeling of superiority makes people feel really good, Nietzsche claims

that feeling superior is the only way to be truly happy. But if we built our individual

moralities around that concept, it wouldn’t bring anyone happiness. People would

constantly be putting each other down and trying to have the best of everything before

anyone else could have it. In a way, that’s how the capitalist American society functions,

but that behavior and ideology is rather immoral. Morals should have to do with

compassion for others as well as preservation of ones self, and how is anyone going to

achieve happiness if they can’t be satisfied what they have because it has to be better then

what everyone else has?

Jewish philosophy approaches morals and ethics differently from Nietzsche. It

states that, although you should strive to survive and be happy, you shouldn’t do so at the

expense of others. “Murder acts of sexual immorality or idolatry may not be committed

even if the perpetration of these crimes is deemed indispensable to the saving of one’s

life.” According to Talmudic opinion, “It is preferable to throw oneself into a burning

furnace than embarrass another person publicly”(Wurzburger, 10). If people approached

morals in this way, there would probably be a lot less crime and corruption, because

people would be thinking of something beside themselves. Unfortunately, people are not

approaching morals in that way. People are thinking less and less about what’s good for

others and more and more about what’s good for them, just like Nietzsche’s philosophy

about feeling superior to others and taking care of yourself. This idea is being endorsed

by the capitalist system in out country. Cornell West describes this phenomenon in his

book, Democracy Matters. He talks about three “dogmas” that are leading to the demise
of democracy. One of them is about the fact that consumerism is eating away at our

compassion for others, and the democracy in our government. “In short, the dangerous

Dogma of Free-Market Fundamentalism turns our attention away from schools to prisons,

from workers’ conditions to profit margins, from health clinics to high-tech facial

surgeries, from civic associations to pornographic internet sites, and from children’s care

to strip clubs. The fundamentalism of the market puts a premium on the activities of

buying and selling, consuming and taking, promoting and advertising, and devalues

community, compassionate charity, and improvement of the general quality of life”(West,

5). Cornell West comments on the selfishness that is being promoted by the United States

government and how people are changing their focus from things that will benefit the

citizens of the United States, to the things which will benefit the individual. But that it

needs to change, and we need to start thinking as a people instead of thinking as

individual citizens.

In order to create a new morality we have to keep things in perspective and think

logically. For example, why isn’t it illegal to lie, when it’s illegal to have people of the

same sex marry? “Deviations from the truth, which are prompted by considerations of

self-interest, are unequivocally condemned” (Wurzburger, 88). Lying is an example of

something that is completely for the benefit of the individual, and it doesn’t do anybody

else any good. In fact, lying can really hurt people. There are no cases of lying that are

not for the benefit of oneself. For example if you lie to your friend, and tell her that she

looks good in a really hideous dress; It doesn’t do her any good for you to lie and let her

walk around all day looking foolish. But it’s easier to make yourself seem kind by not

criticizing her. Also, it’s easier for you not to have to deal with making her feel bad.
Logically, it makes sense not to lie when you think about the way it makes people feel.

The problem of lying is still relevant to our society, just like it has been relevant to many

previous ones. For example if a witness lied in court it wouldn’t help the case because it

wouldn’t be reliable evidence, and it would be for their own personal gain. But

condemning things like gay marriage doesn’t make any sense today.

People wouldn’t do things to benefit themselves at the expense of others, if they

had compassion for each other. The Dalai Lama says that we must always take into

consideration the feelings of others. Because compassion is as much a part of human

nature as our sense of “I.” If we want to get respect, we have to show respect. He also

says that compassionate people are a lot more pleasant to be around. They put you at ease

and make you feel comfortable. We are all human, and we want the same things, and we

all have the same right to be happy. “To be genuine, compassion must be based on respect

for the other, and the realization that others deserve to be happy and overcome suffering

just as much as you do” (Lama, 22). Nietzsche’s philosophy about creating individual

morals didn’t take into consideration the feelings and similarities between human beings.

But having compassion for others is just as important as taking care of yourself because

in a way, you are taking care of yourself, that is, if everyone treated each other with equal

compassion.

When we set up individual moralities, we should keep in mind the fact that world

doesn’t revolve around the individual. It is the combination of billions of individuals who

want the same basic things. We want to be happy, to overcome suffering, and more

simply, to survive. The only way that the world can work is if people think about what’s

best for them, and if it is for the greater good of society. Religion has become a huge part
of our society. A 2001 survey found that 78.9% of the population of the United States

consider themselves Christian

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Religious_affiliation,

1/15/08). The government gets a lot of pressure from the Christian population to

incorporate their religious morals and values into the laws and legislations made for the

country but is that really doing us any good? Logically, it doesn’t make sense to ignore

scientific facts, because they don’t fit into your rigid belief system. The only reason that

people care so much about it is that religion gives them an easy explanation for the

unexplained, and science negates the validity of religious stories. If you think about it, all

religion is, is a story created to keep people living by certain morals and having certain

values. Scientifically a virgin birth is impossible. The basis of religion sounds like a

fictional story. In this book called The Virtual Tourist, Mick Brown quotes a

philosophical writing by a man named Anthony Stor. He states, “religious beliefs

concretize the scientifically implausible” (Brown, 203). For example, why is there

controversy over teaching evolution in science classes? There is a plethora scientific

proof to back up Darwin’s theory of evolution. Yet, for some reason, Christians believe

that we should be teaching children about Creationism in schools. Creationism has no

science to back it up, but because the bible said it happened, people are willing to believe

it.

Morals are not something to impose on others. They are codes to help us survive

and avoid suffering while not causing harm to anybody else. The United States

government should not be influenced by Christian morals and values to make decisions

about laws and legislations for the country. Because they aren’t taking into account the
great diversity of this country and the fact that people should be allowed to follow their

own morals and not have Christian ones imposed on them. The government should

instead create new morals, not based on religion, but based on a combination of the

morals proposed by the Dalai Lama, Nietzsche, and Talmudic philosophy. That would

protect the wellbeing and safety of the country and it’s citizens without causing harm to

anyone or any other country. Our government should take into consideration compassion

for its citizens and should not lie to make a few powerful people more money than they

deserve.

Each individual should create morals that keep them alive and don’t hurt other

people. Laws should be made for the greater good of the people and should be decided

logically based on compassion and understanding of people’s needs. Things like abortion

and gay marriage should be legal without any fuss, they are only immoral because

somewhere in the bible it says so, and Christians believe that everything the Bible says is

right. However they are not looking for proof of any kind. Therefore, Logical reasoning

and empirical fact should take the place of religious morals in government; while

compassion and healthy concern for the preservation of your life should take the place of

religious morals for the individual.

 Bibliography

1. Brown, Mick. The Spiritual Tourist. NY, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, 1998.

2. Lama, Dali. The Essential Dalai Lama. NY, NY: Penguin Group, 2005.

3. Mencken, HL. The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press,
2000.

4. Wurzburger, Walter, S. The Ethics of Responsibility. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish

Publication Society, 1994.

5. Demography of the United States. 5 Nov. 2007. 15 Oct. 2007

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States>.

6. West, Cornell. Democracy Matters. New York, New York: Penguin Group, 2004.