3 Answers

  1. I would replace ” morality “with”ethics”. It'll do, though.

    Moral – a set of rules (on a piece of paper).

    Morality is an introjected set of rules (perceived and followed).

    The idea of morality is to come up with a universal set of rules that fit any situation. And situations are not universal, they are all different and require attention, understanding, ethics, adequacy, relevance, expediency.

    A person who has accepted the norms of morality uncritically and follows them indiscriminately everywhere is doomed to be immoral and immoral. Why is that?

    Let's say there is a rule “you should respect your elders”. Is it universal? And if the “senior” is a pedophile? Sometimes you have to hit your face regardless of your age.

    Let's say there is a “no stealing” rule. What if the boss doesn't pay his salary for six months, but buys himself a new Mercedes? It will not occur to you that in this situation, as a storekeeper, you can “ship” some of the goods home. Because you risk preserving your morals, but losing your children to starvation.

    Why did I write that I would replace “morality” with “ethics”:

    Ethics is a game without rules. You have “ascended” to the commandments and act according to circumstances, guided not by rules, but by the principle of the greatest good or the least harm. This does not prevent you from accepting other people's points of view and moral codes when necessary. “You don't go to a strange monastery with your own charter.” But even from the ” alien monastery codes are not dragged.” We got into “high society”, put a napkin on our knees, elbows removed from the table, a knife in the right, a proper fish fork in the left, cognac is not dared from a champagne glass… When you get home, you calmly pour cognac into a faceted champagne glass.

    A great post about morals, morals, and ethics.

  2. Morality from the word like, like society, do not throw garbage out of the window, and so on, that is, all sorts of rules and norms, and the number of them, these rules, will be all the greater, the greater the desire to break these rules, that is, high morality is inversely proportional to the moral qualities of a person. A highly moral person does not need to follow the rules and norms in order to please, be moral in plain sight and strive for a high bar of morality. It doesn't matter to him, the most difficult thing for him is to be at peace with his conscience.

  3. Hello, Alexander.

    Immanuel Kant was a highly moral man. Kant's practical reason is most likely a person's conscience, which Kant advised to listen to.

    His main moral imperative was: act in such a way that your rule of life can be universal.

    Immanuel had a great respect for state laws and always supported their implementation, but apparently he did not like the Church.

    To understand this philosopher, you probably need to read his works. Although we should not forget that the opinion of any thinker is always individual and may not suit you.

    I think what Kant meant was that when one is strictly taught the rules of social decency, one's natural sense of justice is lost and one becomes the Pharisee that is shown in the Gospel: hypocritical, literal-minded, and heartless, but very correct and decent in appearance.

    I myself believe that external decency can be combined with moral behavior. Only it is necessary to educate not only by orders and a whip, but also by your own example. In particular you can't live by the rule: I'm a father, I can do it, but you kids, you can't. Children with the father will be Pharisaically decent, but without the father they will be wayward and will imitate him in his transgressions.

    I wish you to learn true morality and observe good and reasonable decency in society.

Leave a Reply