Module Professor: Assignment Name

Symbiosis Institute of Media and Communication, Pune
Module Professor
-Prof. Ruchi Jaggi
Assignment Name
Academic Paper
Submitted By:
Student Name: Prateek Raina
Roll no: 29
Specialization and Section: MMC
Batch: 2011-13
WHAT IS GOOD AND WHAT IS BAD

By Prateek Raina
Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life. Aim above
morality. Be not simply good, be good for something.
- Henry David Thoreau
Through this paper I’m trying to find how the concept of morality is understood by people
and what the predominant factors are which govern their moral basis. There have been
some morals that have been passed on through ages because they are considered to be
universally accepted. Some people believe it is God’s word, others think it is innate in us
while even others believe it is taught and people are conditioned to believe in some morals
and not others.
Aristotle said, “Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing
just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.” What Aristotle is
saying is basically two things – Morals are not an innate habit, they have to be taught, be
cultivated and followed diligently to be practiced. And more importantly that morality is
very much a human concept, where it is a part of evolution and survival. The guilt we feel
after doing something wrong or the pleasure we enjoy after doing a noble act is an
evolutionary instinct that guides us towards actions that we should or should not repeat.
Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, presents it beautifully when he says, “A moral being
is one who is capable of reflecting on his past actions and their motives - of approving of
some and disapproving of others.”
However one very important point that Aristotle left out, which wasn’t so prevalent as it is
today, is the society’s definition of what construes ‘moral behaviour’. That is another topic
which I’m hoping to delve into through this paper, as to how someone’s morals are
influenced by society, how an individual responds to it and how sometimes it is
circumstance that alters your definition of what’s right and what’s wrong.
Literature Review
Morality, according to the Oxford English Dictionary is defined as ‘principles concerning the
distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour ’. A lot of research has
been done on this topic, a lot of books have been printed and numerous discussions have
been held on it in the last few centuries. Most of the research trickles down to a few major
factors which have been figured out to be the basis of morality, like - Religion, God,
Education and Free-thinking.
Robert Kunzman in his paper titled ‘Religion, Ethics and the Implications for Moral
Education: a critique of Nucci’s Morality and Religious Rules’ states that though morality is
only weakly related to religion, moral knowledge none the less involves relevant (and
sometimes critical) religious considerations. With reference to a number of interviews Nucci
had with religious students, Robert Kunzman takes on Nucci’s claim that “with respect to
moral issues, it was apparent that children had reasons beyond ‘God’s law’ to object to
alterations in the governing rules”. He says that “though some religious students see moral
laws as justiﬁed by more than their own religious beliefs, it would be unwarranted to
conclude (as Nucci does) that the source of moral criteria for these children is entirely
independent of religious belief. ”
Nucci conducted an interview with 17 year old Faith, after which he concluded that “the
notions of God’s moral authority, held by the participants in this study, stemmed from their
assumptions about the inherent goodness of the Judeo–Christian God.” Nucci then
questioned the assumption about God’s goodness, which although Kunzman refuted, one
can easily doubt. The study undertakes the assumption that God is that he is a good person
and ergo we must act like him is all in one’s head. It is manufactured and drilled into ones
minds by parents and society because it has been drilled into their minds and so on.
According to it, man first made up God and then made up the fact that he is good, so that
we may act like Him. But isn’t one fooling himself? The assumption itself fails the study as it
is taken for granted that God is a construct, because he is always good.
Zhuo Xinping has written a paper on Religion and Morality in Contemporary China. He
presents a point beautifully when he says that, “The traditional concept of morality has
close connections with human community.” He goes on further to explain the “true”, the
“good” and the “beautiful” which are advocated by religion are in fact aims pursued by the
human community, the realizations of which are within the human collective. He clearly
establishes that there is no need for religion and God, and that such aims are of universal
significance.
He cites Alisdair MacIntyre and his famous work ‘After Virtue’, saying that, ‘In the
contemporary situation, the original non-individual, collective, objective and universally
accepted moral standards are disappearing with the so-called ‘self realization’ of
individuals ’. This is a clear gap in his study because there is no empirical evidence to prove
it. One might disagree with Mr. MacIntyre when he says that moral standards are
disappearing. There has been self-realization of individuals which has resulted in a clearer
understanding of what is right and what is wrong. One can even say that man has attained
even more clarity on this subject than his predecessors.
The next paper I’d like to discuss is ‘Loving God, Fearing God’ by Paul Thigpen (PhD). It
explores the concept of how although one loves God , one is also simultaneously in fear of
him. It elucidates by saying that ‘ If perfect love casts out fear, how can we fulfil the
commands both to love God perfectly and to fear Him? ’ He goes on to say that we fear God
because we are mere creatures and that we are sinful, and that we deserve this
punishment. The stance taken by Dr. Paul is almost of an extremist. If we went by this logic
then we are assuming that everybody on this planet is drawn towards sin, that you can’t
help but do wrong, and it is only because of this benevolent entity that we ‘keep quiet’. God
almost seems like a tough parent here, instead of the all-loving, all benevolent entity that
God is presumed to be. So one must judge ones actions, decide from right and wrong and
execute them in a way that makes moral sense. If someone hadn’t told you that
murder(unlawful killing) was bad, you wouldn’t have not figured it out on your own. It’s all
part of an evolutionary process, where since we have the capacity to reason, to think, we
also have the capacity of distinguishing right from wrong.
However we now come to a very interesting point which has been covered by Ben Spratling
in has paper on ‘Circumstantial Morality’. He gives a brilliant example which more or less
sums up the idea of how circumstances affect your morality. Here goes it -
“ Is it ok for me to use my finger to move a piece of metal? Is it ok if that piece of metal is a
trigger? Is it ok if the gun is aimed at someone? Your answer will usually be “Yes,” followed
by “no,” and ending with “definitely not!” But what if that piece of metal is the key I use to
unlock my house door? Surely, that is ok, so what makes pulling a gun trigger wrong? I
could kill someone! But what if I’m at a range, practicing, assured that no person is in front
of me? Surely it is not wrong to fire a gun in that circumstance! And, if I am an Allied Troop
shooting that commander of the Nazi forces; when I am a solder commanded by the
sovereign head of my nation to protect the lives of the people executing, in war time, an
enemy combatant, surely that is not wrong - instead I am a hero! So notice that by changing
the circumstances surrounding my physical actions changes what your response is to
whether I should do it or not! ”
One could agree with Mr. Spratling when he says that circumstances play a huge role in
defining what is morally right and what is not. It is why someone might cheat in an exam to
pass, and stop students from cheating when invigilating them. It is why one might ‘hit and
run’ if nobody is looking, but if one saw a hit and run, they might go and help them. It is why
one might bribe someone to get a job done but simultaneously have a strong stand against
corruption.
All these examples prove a point that morality is also dependent on the circumstances
surrounding the event.
References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Morality_and_religion
2. Religion, Ethics and the Implications for Moral Education: a critique of Nucci’s
Morality and Religious Rules by Robert Kunzman
3. Religion and Morality in Contemporary China by Zhuo Xinping
4. Loving God, Fearing God by Paul Thigpen
5. Circumstantial Morality by Ben Spratling
6. http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/26814
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_without_religion#Morality_does_not_rely_on_religio
n
8. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/08/the-science-of-.html
Objectives and Conceptual framework

The concept of morality has been with us through ages. It has been most often linked with
religious scriptures and holds some kind of divine relevance. However, if you don’t believe
in God then where does one stand. Is one not capable of making moral decisions on his
own? As Christopher Hitchens says, it’s “the appalling insinuations that I would not know
right from wrong if I was not supernaturally guided.” You have the animal world where you
don’t find many wrongs. Where is their objective ground of right and wrong? There are
many tribes all across the world that have never seen a scripture in their lives but they have
been following a moral code of conduct for many many years. Following Mr. Hitchens
further, ‘to say that God has provided us with a set of rules to follow is quite inane, even
disrespectful to the human mind.’
What we are trying to derive at through this research, is that although morality is an
intrinsic quality, there are 2 factors which majorly influence it – one being religion and the
other circumstances. Religion has been influencing and dictating the moral code for
hundreds of years and nobody has questioned it. Partly because what some scriptures say is
absolutely true. But then again that is because our knowledge of right and wrong is innate in
us. Religion gets its morality from humans. We know that we can't get along if we permit
perjury, theft, murder, rape. All societies at all times, well before the advent of monarchies,
have forbidden it.
The second factor that plays an even bigger role but which hasn’t been given due
consideration is circumstance. What I’m trying to find through this research is how people,
when faced with moral dilemmas behave differently in different situations. How one moral
dilemma can be thought of as greater than the other and how morality can we worked
around, if it can.
Research Methodology and Data Analysis

With such a diverse range of topics, I knew I had to quantify my assumptions. To be able to
lend credibility and to empirically formulate my assumptions I conducted a 10 question
survey among my classmates and friends. I received 40 responses and the data is as follows:
We see that as a response to question 1, 57.5% of the people claim that they are not God-
fearing but as a response to question 2, 92.5 % of the people feel guilt when they do
something wrong. This means that most of the people have an ‘inner compass’ of sorts that
tells them right from wrong. This is keeping in mind that 57.5 % people are not God fearing.
So they have an innate sense of guilt that is scientifically known to play a vital role in the
regulation of social behaviour. In a new study published by the Association for Psychological
Science, New York University psychologist, David M. Amodio, and his colleagues believe that
guilt is initially associated with withdrawal motivation, which then transforms into
approach-motivated behaviour when an opportunity to make amends presents itself.
In the next question, that is question 3 we see that 65% of the people don’t believe that God
will punish them for doing something wrong while 35% do believe that God punishes.
What that implies is that the minority 35%, who are obviously theists are convinced of the
fact that there is a higher force judging our actions. While 65% of the people, which
probably has both theists and atheists, believe that God does not judge our actions. Which
means that for some theists God is someone who has given the commandments/teachings
and expects you to follow them.
In the fourth question , we see that none of the people believe that morality is solely a
Divine/Religious concept. While 70% people believe that it is a human concept, only 30%
believe that it is a mix of both human and divine idea. Which tells us that 70% people
believe that morality was introduced by man into this world and not God. Which means that
these people would tell right and wrong by themselves, and not as dictated by a higher
force. However, in this comes I dilemma that each person has his own subjective view of
thinking and thus decide right from wrong accordingly.
In question 5 we follow that religion has not greatly influenced many people definition of
morality as only 12.5% of the people feel so. For 87.5% of the people the broad sense of
morality was through a lot of sources like parents, society,etc and less from religion. For
40%, religion played no role at all.
Collating the responses of question 6, we find that 72.5% people have given a bribe, a
decent 35% people have stolen money, very few- 9% people have been involved in a hit
and run, more than half- 55% people have assaulted someone physically or emotionally and
most people- 85% have cheated in an exam.
Now in question 7 we see that 57.5 % people believe that moral decisions are not that rigid.
At times they can be worked around. Based on what factors we do not know. A quarter of
the people have no answer/are confused and 17.5% firmly believe that moral decisions are
redundant, that is they are of no use.
Question 8 gives us an interesting viewpoint. Of the number of people who said ‘no’ as a
response to all of the questions in question 6, the number of people who believe(52.5%)
and not believe(47.5%) in God are almost the same. This again reinforces the fact that for
many of us morality is not something that comes from a higher divine source, it is innate in
us.
When I raised questions of society and circumstances affecting morality I received several
responses, some of which were quite interesting. The results are a shown below.
Responses :
Showing 40 text responses
No responses selected
dd
3/28/2012 1:08 PMView Responses
no..
Picking up habits from your peer group, even smoking and drinking for that matter
3/28/2012 12:07 AMView Responses
Yes it does. When you look at others doing wrong and getting away with it, you feel why not I do it too?
Protrayal in actuality, through media, which is rampant in capturing these bites.
Yes...peer pressure
.
yep...society sets morality benchmarks Being liberal for some...could be immoral for others
ofcourse
In my opinion society consists of mostly hypocrites. So society's opinion doesnt matter much to me.
no it doesnt. my morality is infleunced by me only, not by society.
Yes....to some extent. The only way it can influence your morality is when the people involved (like parents,
children, wives, etc) get blamed for the decisions you take.
dsjfndsfsd
Yes, sometimes giving a bribe is the only way out to get your work done in this country
A large part of the society views somebody who takes the high road and suffers for it as a person who made a
poor choice.
No
yes, by agreeing or being silent with the wrong being done by the powerful and the influential. By letting culprits
walk away unscathed, society makes morality redundnt.
morality is a coolness trip..hence..
No
yes some societal circumstances influence you to take particular actions
yes
CORRUPTION, the dowry system,gender inequality etc they all are the part of society or i say the long
continuing customs... and customs have very little to do with morals..... so a big YES.
yes...
In my opinion society defines morality...so it has an influence in our moral decisions...
yes because it teaches you one thing very clearly that survival is not possible without adulterating paths!!
Peer pressure
yes,sometimes you want to do things but the fear of what will the society say prevents you.At the end you have
to live in the society only.
No
Yes. Immensely. By instilling and imposing a regressive, impractical, and self righteous moral code, that is often
dictated by the pressure to just "fit in", be acceptable, and not defy preset moral standards beyond a certain level
of comfort. I guess my parents contributed to that great hypocrisy in my sense of morality too--so, in my world,
it's Ok to work, live, and function as an independent adult, but blasphemous to be in a physically intimate
relationship (an instinctive feature of a normal adult life..as I imagine, God intended it)!
It does in many ways. dont have any particular example but it definitely have influence on one's morality.
i'd like to believe that it doesn't, but i'm not sure. whatever negative influence is there on my morality, i think is
there because of some external factor. any external factor i think stems from society at some level. so yes.
Yes, society accepts wrongs as a common occurrence so that influences the common belief of the masses and
makes it okay to commit mistakes. We forget our morals due to that acceptance.
yes, when we people doing wrong stuff and being immoral it influences us sometimes
Morality keeps changing according to the convenience of those in power and who believe they have a right to
judge. It is also a subjective concept. Society can only judge, however everyone knows that behind closed
doors, everyone cheats, lies and robs. Society is imperfect and chaotic. Thus, it has never affected my morality--
neither positively nor negatively.
No
Hmm. I don't know.
Frustration at requirement of being seen doing the right thing
NO
yes. seeing others do immoral things
As you see out of 39 responses, 24 believe that society does influence your morals in a
negative way. Only 7 people have clearly responded with a ‘no’, while the rest are confused.
Thus majority of the people believe that society in some form of the other – peer pressure,
corruption, media, etc degrades a person’s sense of morality, his ability to think right from
wrong. This again means that it is subjective to the individual and hence part of free
thought. If society can influence someone’s morals then it means that there isn’t a uniform
code of morals being followed in society. Which would mean that it is an ever changing
proves and in a sense volatile depending on which society you live in – be it secularist,
communist or socialist.
When asked about circumstances affecting morality, again I received several open
responses as follows:
Responses
dd
yes sometimes..
Yes. Self-Preservation.
Yes they do. Sometimes the only choice is to twist morality issues to get your way.
The situation is the prime reason which influences decision-making.
Yes... situationally
.
No
ofocurse, peer pressure, it used to once, no longer though.
Sometimes circumstances do make it difficult to choose, whether to go with your morals or not. But I
try go with my morals no matter what circumstances are. At least I wont have a guilty conscience.
yes they do.
No they dont. Just do what i want when it is necessary.
zdfsfd
Yes, sometimes giving a bribe is the only way out to get your work done in this country
Perspective on a situation affects one's judgment of right and wrong.
Yes, it is about convenience and whether going around morality causes me less damage
Yes, because it is not always morality first. Survival is the basic human instinct and when your
survival is at stake, morality is not an option.
yes..dim the distinction in the choices..point-of-time thinking is altered and hence the actions..
No
yes some societal circumstances influence you to take particular actions
no
yes,circumstances like when i am lazy or in hurry i usually skips on the morals part and move on.
otherwise i am a person of strong will and i stick to my morals.
yes... once a professor in class said "i make sure to come on time and let you guys out on time, my
classes have never been delayed or prolonged, hence i can't tolerate late coming by you". Though i
regularly go late to the classes, his class is one class i make sure i am on time, just because of what
he said.
They do...depending on circumstances,
yes, when situations and reasons matter more that words.
Exam. Gonna fail. Must cheat.
yes,sometimes you want to do things but the circumstance prevents you.
No
The principle of double effect aside, yes, greatly. To begin with, I completely support Euthanasia,
killing dictators, and white lies. Having said that, I may regret some decisions or actions in the past
that were determined by circumstances, but driven by a complete deprivation of moral
standards/beliefs. And no, I didn't euthanize, or kill Gadaffi anytime recently.
It does. Talking right decision at right time is important that thinking of morality in certain situation.
again, yes. when put in a tough circumstance where you gain from the negative and lose from the
positive, then judgment comes in the picture. which is a result of your priorities. which are a result of
your morality.
I can't say if they influence our morality...but they definitely bring out our morality, whatever of it
exists.
no
Morality is influenced by external factors. So yes. Circumstances do affect morality. Killing an animal
might be considered wrong, but killing an animal in the name of god is the noble thing to do. Context
is all important, even when it comes to vague concepts like morality.
No
May be.
The ends do justify the means.
NO
yes. feel like rewarding good deeds by others
26 people out of 39 responded that circumstances did indeed influence their sense of
morality. This proves the point I was trying to establish that morality is circumstantial. A lot
of the respondents have been very forward about it, saying that it is necessary for survival in
this world. Some believe circumstances define your sense of morality at that point in time.
Some believe circumstances can make a person do moral things, bring out the inner good.
Others believe it sometimes makes a person helpless and immoral/amoral.
Only 8 people out of 39 believe that a person’s morality is devoid of the circumstances he or
she is in. Which means that no matter the circumstance, a person would always do what he
thinks is moral. This means that there is either a strict code of conduct that the person
would always follow or the person would do what he wants whenever he wants without any
sense of right and wrong. Both these seem like extreme viewpoints to take on a subject
matter dealing with day to day life. You are faced with moral issues all the time and there
are so many factors that contribute to a situation that to take the same rigid philosophy to
the issue each time seems like un-evolved thought. On the other end, if a person wishes to
do whatever he wants whenever he wants then the issue of morals is gone and you are
dealing with someone who does not understand the difference between right and wrong as
whatever this person does is always right.
Thus we see that the majority feels that circumstances do tend to influence your sense of
morality, that there are situations where you cannot help it, i.e. you tend to work around
your morals to ease your way through. You do feel guilt when you do something wrong, but
does that stop you from doing it? No, it only reinforces the fact that such behaviour is not
normal and if possible to amend it the next time. Survival has been stated as one of the
reasons for people bending their morals, looking the other side, while Perspective has been
stated as another important reason. Where an issue may look or seem moral from your
side, it may have an opposite view from another side. Thus it is not such an easy decision.
Morality is a complex concept which cannot be restricted to a few lines in a textbook as the
world is an ever-changing place and we are evolving continuously ergo we must think before
we do what we do and understand that there are factors and angles to an event, so a rigid
philosophy cannot be in place.
As Hamlet says, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Conclusion
Friedrich Nietzsche said, “A moral system valid for all is basically immoral.” What my
understanding of this statement is that morality is such a vague, complex concept that it is
not possible for the entire human race with all its differences to have a single code of
morals. Through my research I can empirically state that a single code of morals has not
been followed by all or else I would have received fairly uniform answers. This is to explain
that morality has been a tricky subject for a long time and has several texts dedicated to it,
take for example The Mahabharata. One of the central questions of the book is ‘why is
there a need to be good and what if we are not.’ The Mahabharata also struggles with the
concept of morality a lot and has several debates between its main characters on why we do
what we do, i.e our actions and why must they be good. Where at one side, when
Yudhishtra loses the game of dice he rightfully leaves the throne as he must abide by the
moral principle of satya(truth), on the other side is Draupadi, in the middle of the vastra-
haran(forced undressing) mocking the court for forgetting their morals. How is it that one
moral action has led to an immoral action. This is what the Mahabharata struggles with and
what we have explored in this paper.
We have found that a lot of people believe that circumstances do affect your morals. It may
have either, a positive or a negative effect on your morality depending on the path you take.
Let us take for example the instance of a riot. The 1984 anti-Sikh riots are a perfect example
of how morality changes from Nietzsche definition of the herd-instinct in the individual to
Jefferson idea that, “Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to
yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act
accordingly.” Although you had people killing others because they thought this was morally
right (which it was most obviously not), there were others who decided to help and shelter
the Sikhs so as to save them from the maniacal rioting crowd. While some believed that
what everyone was doing was moral, i.e killing in the name of religion, others realized that
considering the circumstances and the chaotic environment outside, what was morally right
was to shelter these people somehow. Both the groups of people were convinced that they
were morally right, but what it basically came down to was the fact that each and every
individual had the option to go with what was being portrayed as morally right and what
indeed was morally right.
Numerous circumstances can be quoted throughout history where morals have been
twisted to suit the aggressor and induce people to do what we must and in the end it always
comes down to the individual to rely on his definition of right and wrong, his morality.
Bibliography
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Morality_and_religion
2. Religion, Ethics and the Implications for Moral Education: a critique of Nucci’s
Morality and Religious Rules by Robert Kunzman
3. Religion and Morality in Contemporary China by Zhuo Xinping
4. Loving God, Fearing God by Paul Thigpen
5. Circumstantial Morality by Ben Spratling
6. http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/26814
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_without_religion#Morality_does_not_rely_on_religio
n
8. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/08/the-science-of-.html
9. The Difficulty of Being Good by Gurcharan Das

Module Professor: Assignment Name

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Module Professor: Assignment Name

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Symbiosis Institute of Media and Communication, Pune

Student Name: Prateek Raina

Specialization and Section: MMC

WHAT IS GOOD AND WHAT IS BAD

Objectives and Conceptual framework

Research Methodology and Data Analysis

S-ar putea să vă placă și