The Real World

The suggestion that philosophy or morality are subjects of whimsical introspection of the Human condition by elitist intellectuals without regard to the actual daily lives of the majority of people is in itself, whimsical. We all operate under a philosophical and moral imperative whether or not we can delineate it intellectually. The process of delineating our moral position is testing to see whether or not it is plausible or beneficial.  One of the common tenets of morality is to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Which is fine unless you're a psychopath or masochist.   We share many characteristics of the other animals on the planet, one of which is to act instinctively rather than introspectively.  We do not attempt to judge other animals morally because they act mainly on instinct.  As do we.  The difference is that we have the mental faculties with which can posit alternative actions to acting emotionally or on instinct.  We act immorally because we abandon our intellectual assets in favor of acting impulsively or selfishly.  Acting morally in the real world implies rigorous study of the Human condition not only in the moment but in introspection and in the context of the social contract.  

Moral Societies

It is fairly easy to determine moral actions for individuals.  It becomes more difficult  to discern moral actions in the context of an immoral society.  A soldier killing combatants in Afghanistan is essentially protecting his territory against an aggressor, a moral act.  The complications arise when the reasons for the aggression are added to the equation.  The United States over the past century has acted imperialistically in various areas of the world and in particular, the Middle East, in order to secure a steady supply of oil.  These actions have created an intense environment of suspicion and hatred of American policies and have driven the rise of organizations designed to increase the impression of repression by the United States while created pseudo governments who entire purpose is to fight the enemy.  The United States in its energy policy has provided the means necessary to fund these organizations with its purchase of oil from OPEC.  Afghan rebels would not exist without the petrodollars flowing into the region even though Afghanistan does not have significant oil reserves, they are aligned culturally with the Middle East and thus receive OPEC funding.  Thus the Afghan rebels consider their actions as equally moral as the American soldier. At the root, the Americans need to either pay the price and accept the terms for oil production or provide internally its energy needs to act morally.  The Afghans need to exclude American influence and OPEC nations need to use theri petro-windfall to crate sustainable economies to act morally.  Neither entity should try to subject the other to their version of government or religion, which has never worked in modern times and is immoral to try.  

Law and Morality

The rule of law and the law of morality were at one time the same concept. This is no longer the case as we see law and morality as distinct, yet complimentary entities. The majority of activities considered immoral at this time are also illegal. Morality has become the rules beyond the scope of law. A person who seeks to live morally is exceeding the minimum standards for behavior set by the law. It is quite possible for someone to be well within the law at the same time behaving in an immoral manner. We have decided to live in a collective where value is determined monetarily.  In this context, businesses act immorally by lying, deceiving, and otherwise acting predatorily to make money.  This is viewed as moral unless it is evidentially outside of the law.  While the law tends to focus on the extent of Human interaction that can be quantitatively defined, morality seeks to regulate actions and thoughts that arise from subjective Human values. Morality is subjective but it is necessarily also quantifiable.  Morality changes as our social conditions change but it must be intellectually sound. It arises out of a particular set of circumstances. Once removed from that particular set of circumstances it may or may not be relevant. If I were to murder an enemy of mine in the context of a normal social setting, I would certainly be sent to prison for most of my life or even executed. If, however, I were a member of the United States Marines and engaged in combat, I could slaughter as many Human Beings as I liked on the battlefield. This would not result in my imprisonment but rather would be viewed as an act of great benefit to society. Moral issues are hotly debated because there are no absolute answers. Each issue must be dealt with both individually and with a clear idea of the circumstances involved. The law as it is written implies not only standards for behaviors, but also the conditions under which the law is applicable. That is why there are thousands of laws trying to cover the multitudinous aspects of the Human condition. It is also the reason for loopholes that allow the law to be circumvented under unusual circumstances. Morality changes with the times. Many of the standards of moral behavior thirty years ago are not applicable at this time.

Derivation of the Moral Framework

Moral behavior to a religious person is derived from interpretation of ancient texts.  Not only are these texts interpreted, and in interpretation from the original language necessarily modified, but are also so far removed from the current social contract that they strain to be relevant.  Add in the factor that there is no evidence for anything supernatural let alone an omniscient deity, and we are left with the only recourse of abandoning religion as a basis for moral behavior.  Where then, should we derive our moral framework that will guide us in making moral decisions?  We already know what moral behavior is and have been practicing it for millennia.  We found out long ago that entering into a society and cooperating with the members of that society facilitates our long-term survival.  We had mores and morals long before the invention of dogmatic religion and probably before written language.  Morality is simply the behavior that promotes the long-term survival of the collective while providing latitude for the individual to direct the course of their life.  No society can attain the status of a clearly independent society without the cooperation of the vast majority of its populous. The rules of behavior and law must be observed without significant deviation in order for the people to reap the benefits that a sustainable society can provide. The overwhelming majority of people in the United States do not commit serious crimes. They act in accordance with the norms of behavior set down by law and custom. While deviant behavior is certainly a problem, it does not bring our civilization to the point of disintegration.  Moral behavior derives from a conscious examination of our collective situation and determining the behavior that will bring the greatest benefit without destroying individual expression.  It is not complicated or dogmatic in this sense.  It only demands empirical introspection.  

Moral Framework

Morality as a set of absolutes or stone chiseled laws has failed the test of time in Human culture.  Morality as a set of rules defined by a society or country without regard to history or societies outside of its borders has also failed.  Morality is defined by our social circumstances and is therefore relative to those circumstances but not to the underlying framework.  Which is that we must act individually within a collective to enusre our individual and collective survival.  The example of two combatants who are equally moral in blowing each others brains out is not justified under the moral framework.  They amy both be acting immorally.
they are not both acting morally.  Under the physical threat of death it is moral to defend oneself to the point of killing another to eliminate that threat under the condition that the defender is not jeopardizing the lives of others or did not provoke the attack unnecessarily.  The above picture is from a recent movie, "The Act of Killing".  This docuemntary details the government sponsored murderers and torturers during the massacre of Communists in Indonesia in the 60's.  The gangsters and thugs the Indonesian government were unapologetic and sometimes gleeful in recalling their attrocities.  Their motive was profit.  The government's motive was control through fear.  There can be no moral justification for their actions because no moral framework was considered. They did it because they could.  We have to be better than that.  We have to consider our actions as they affect our ability to survive.