Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

Angelo, Lance Carlo H.

ETHICS

2 – Creative Writing Synthesis Paper

“Should I be moral? Why or why not?”

On a contemporary standpoint where humanity right now is on the verge of destroying


itself with its vile and poisonous traits that inhibit the end of society’s peace and order, yes. This
is because humanity has a role, and as humans, we need to fulfill that role. Philosophically, it isn’t
as to “how” philosophy humanize man since it is a contradiction and an assumption, it should be,
“Does philosophy humanize man?”

The assumption is that philosophy humanizes mankind and the contradiction is the thought
that mankind becomes human because of philosophy when that study attempts to make humans
into something less human and make them something greater. This is humanity – a collection of
dust particles brought together in a humanoid form that has the base instincts of other animals: to
eat, to have sex and reproduce, and to survive, but it is how we go about it that makes us human.

Philosophy should be practiced for that but, again, the contradiction is that they believe
philosophy just makes us human rather than making us greater than human. When philosophy
began with humanity, we started gaining culture, reason, logic, art, civilization, and nations. We
learned the higher points of existence and spread – expanded to become even more powerful at the
expense of everything else. But the one problem with this is the fact that once a person becomes
philosophical, like they do with anything else, they start to use it as a badge of pride as if it makes
them better than other humans when it doesn't. Philosophy would explain that because you know
of it, doesn't make you more moral, it’s how you use it and apply it that makes you moral. How
one is treating their fellow humans either uplifting them (which is moral) or putting them down
(which is immoral) and can you see which ones comes out on top almost ninety percent of the
time?

Furthermore, philosophy studies human nature and the human mind, we learn about it to
transcend, but it contradicts when we allow our human natures to take over, the basic ideas of
humanity. The instincts of eating, having sex, and survive override anything that would be logical
and philosophical. In this sense, when someone is homeless, starving, and has no job, but has the
determination to work for food, it is moral to give them the opportunity and hire them since they
are willing to work for the money and eat with what they worked hard for.

That is the moral thing which goes with philosophy, society works better when we work in
tandem with and for each other. By helping this person, we are adding a worker into the work force
which helps the society that we live in by ensuring that they are no longer on the streets
endangering themselves or others and no longer disturbing the law by them loitering on the streets.
However, this is hindered because of the bad reputation that has been brought upon them by
society; having no future, burglars, someone that causes trouble and inconvenience. By being
immoral and not attempting to care for the citizens, the society creates its own problems.

There are also disadvantages of being moral since it involves putting someone else’s well-
being ahead of your own or to stick your neck out for them in order to help.

Now looking at a historical context, should a contemporary man be moral? Yes, obviously.

World War II basically was the culmination of one man's insanity and immorality believing
that his people were the master race and that they should conquer all of Europe. People think that
Hitler wanted to conquer the world but that is not the truth, primarily for the fact that Germany did
not have the resources to take over the world.

This is where twisted moralities come into play. He believed that his people were superior
because they came from the ruling seventh race of Atlantis which is inconceivable since Atlantis
didn't have races and is deemed more as a thought experiment than an actual place. Ironically
enough though, Hitler, despite his insanity had some good points; one of which that his people
needed to be united in order to go strong after their defeat in World War I. By appealing to their
sense of uniqueness and unity, he did that and it was one of the reasons that Germany was so
powerful and unified into such a dangerous state. The next thought was also ironically correct, to
regain control of his people's land which were taken from them in World War I – twenty years
earlier and reclaimed it. But this is where everything went haywire.

He blamed Germany's financial issues on the Jews, marginalized them to no end save for
those who were in his army, and stoked the fears of the people. One would find ironic similarities
between his policies and Donald Trump's if it wasn't for the fact that America did not unite behind
Trump because of many of his futile policies and idiocy.

Hitler’s lack of morality comes into play by how he pushed the German people into war,
how he encouraged them to fight for "What is theirs because they are the purist Aryans,” and how
he attempted to destroy Christianity in that nation and make himself the head of a new religion
dedicated to himself. Furthermore, he created a cult of personality around him, a base of supporters
that would follow him no matter what and even die to protect him. To have that much influence,
it speaks that man has power; the power of his words, the confidence that he possessed, and the
passion that drove him.

Trump, ironically enough, has none of that and it’s due to the fact his base believes him to
be some great deal marker and a businessman that makes him great. Even though his deals are
ludicrous and you never want a businessman to be acting as the leader of a nation since it will
always backfire. So, while Hitler was driving the passions and pride of a defeat people, Trump
drove the racist and idiotic minds of his base.

Baby Boomers are one of the most immoral generations there is up to a contemporary
context, however, they became known for being racist, sexist, and practicing anti-ways over time.
They were the freedom fighters, those who stood against immorality and injustice. But when their
parents died off, they began to take over the corporations, the businesses, and the places of power,
and they wanted more of that. They became corrupt and immoral over time, and it’s not about the
money. It’s more the fact that it was finally their turn to rule everything and that is the only thing.
When they didn’t rule, they complained, fought, and spoke about the greater good and what is
necessary for the planet.

Why be moral if it’s going to come as a loss for you? It’s because being moral is thinking
of someone else’s welfare other than yours. Furthermore, the Baby Boomers have had a difficult
time understanding that the things they could afford in the past are not as affordable in the present.
They decide not to move and buy new houses which makes buying a house no longer profitable or
even possible due to their incapability of caring for anyone except themselves. They want to call
everyone else entitled or lazy despite wages for Americans have not gone up in the past half a
century while everything else has become morbidly more expensive.
Dilemmas within the moral and ethical paradigm of the human psyche can be visualized
through saving a suicidal attempt from someone through falling from tall building. From a moral
standpoint, saving someone who did not wish to be saved, the person wants to take their own life
and a brief observation would have revealed that they are trying to commit suicide. But when
someone’s own sense of morals – the right thing to do so is by saving them. Ethically, the person
who attempted should thank the savior or try to better their life, but instead would come to a result
of suing the savior for hurting him in the process.

When someone is willing to take their own life, why sue the savior for pain and suffering?
It’s because of money, it is clearly acted to be a scam. Knowing that someone would save the
suicidal person’s attempt and hurt or harm them in the process, this enables them to engage in a
case against the savior for financial gain to, clearly, get out of the situation they are currently in.
Though realistically, there are other ways to take his own life other than having someone interfere
through the public spectacle.

For the person to sue the one who saved him for pain and suffering, it shows the entire
thing was an act on their part; that or they are far worse beings than giving credit for. The person
would clearly take advantage of the situation, suing the savior despite wanting to take their own
life and seeing this as their own way of whatever financial trouble they were in. In a lawsuit, that
would have been a clear because he was “a person who did not wish to be saved”.

This is a good example of morals and ethics in play. Morals is the intense sense of right
and wrong. The morally good savior would not take a stock of the situation and immediately save
the person from the attempt. To their sense of right and wrong, that was the right thing to do.
Which, given a slip second reaction makes sense to preserve life. Putting at a bystander effect the
savior shouldn’t be held liable since it is only moral to save someone from their suicidal attempt.

The question of whether contemporary man should be moral and ethical or not possesses
an obvious answer where it should be, they must be moral and ethical. To reject that, to push it
aside, and to question is to invite the idea that we do not need it, that it is useless when that is not
the case. Morality and ethics go into the same sensibility as common sense which has become a
lost art form, politics use the term common sense to justify actions to problems that actually causes
more harm than good, going with more ineffectual solutions than more effective ones that could
be used. Case in point, border walls, in our modern society they would not work without the
manpower, surveillance equipment and firepower necessary to maintain them. A wall, by itself,
will do nothing, one that is poorly equipped and defended will crumble with such legendary
edifices like the Great Wall of China having failed to stop the Mongol hoard and even the first
border wall in history built by the people of Uruk that fell and enabled the destruction of their
civilization.

That said, common sense – a good sense and sound judgment in practical term – isn’t as
different as being moral. It is not structured, but it is built to be of benefit to the individual, the
family, society and the nation. Each action ripples into the next and so forth, common sense is
meant for people to have sound judgement and to judge their own actions in accordance to those
values and structures. "How does this affect me" is mainly how humanity aspects progress. But
common sense would dictate that it goes further, such as stealing, how does it go? All could be in
the inverse; it is like justifying a bad deed through a good cause. The inverse is stealing something
but reconsidering the causes that it will draw back – in other words, karma. Karma is the idea of
doing something will come back in without the whole universe aspect, but since humanity is what
humanity does, even the idea of karma is not limited to good or evil actions. In an analogy of
working for someone, giving them the loyalty is important which means the choices made should
try to reflect well upon the person. This acts as a counterweight on the overall karma.

Within these interconnected aspects, human social behavior also comes into play of being
moral. Human social behavior is like the pack analogy of wolves, humanity has always grouped
itself together in order to survive. This was something that came over from the earliest times of
our evolution, common sense and morality, and ethics were determined in their most basic forms
to regulate the social structure and behavior. Essentially, they were mutual agreements of working
together without exploitation or the like. Thus, these “immoralities” are more than enough to take
down the mutual agreement that was established.

Originally, humanity was supposed to be like spread-out singularities, powerful and wise
yet around. But given how many people are around, the agreements became rules and expectations
of how humans should act, behave, and learn. Unfortunately, this caused people with disabilities,
LGBTQIA+ Community, and other groups are often ridiculed or rejected because it’s against the
base norm that ancient humanity created for themselves when they first began creating
civilizations. In cases of religion, it didn’t start appearing until after civilizations did, when humans
began forming into groups and when they have arrived, they made the norms more complex. The
original norm being “You don’t attempt to kill me therefore I shall do the same.” But with religion
and society came other norms that have been established.

Though, has “moral” been a norm? No, the original norm was to “survive at all costs”, with
that came others which further extends these established norms; respect and courtesy came into
existence with that making survival into several different branches of the norm. Survival has been
split to no theft and adultery, etc. which eventually turned into means in which to make survival
even more efficient then harder. The Trade and Barter system increased the ability to survive. But
that changed with the money system which started poverty and a price being on everything. Even
the saying, “You don’t work, you don’t eat” did not come from the Bible but instead was one of
the ancient norms where humans had to contribute to the group in order to eat. But with this new
money system, morals have been swayed and theft became a huge threat, and with that came the
concept of putting a price on a human life.

There is a popular moral conundrum being “the button” whereas pushing the button
benefits the person with one million dollars for the price of one human life that will perish
somewhere in the Earth. That is more of a foolish idea considering that merchants have put prices
on life for millennia – most popular being slavery.

Another interconnected aspect from slavery in morals is social justice. Even though Abe
Lincoln was trying to deprive the South of their highest producing produce, cotton, he did help to
free slaves in America. That would make him the unofficial first social justice warrior, a person
who goes against injustice to fight for the rights of those who are downtrodden. But make no
mistake, we have none of that today. Ideas like equal representation is nice and all but it’s
something that doesn't have to be forced or even pushed. Martin Luther King was a social justice
warrior, a person who helped the segregated people to have equal rights and standings with their
fellow Americans. To have better healthcare, education, and a better opportunity for the future
rather than continuing the trend and hatred that was plaguing the 1960s. A social justice warrior is
only considered moral when done appropriately and for the right reasons, but how it’s pursued
today, it’s a definite no.

Just as social justice is fighting against the problems that are in society, that enables the
strong to take advantage of the weak. Social expectations are the norms that have been propped up
to maintain those injustices and way of thinking and life that is accustom to those who have lived
in it. In both ways, morals have become a social expectation. Like in America, treating everyone
equally, not discriminate, and start problems is a supposed task, but taking into consideration
where they are, the given may be played inverted. This is to maintain the idea of one being superior
which is where all these aspects go. It’s meant to maintain order and balance on a macro-scale but
because the old dogmas and problems of the past were never resulted, it causes the social
expectation to become a hinderance and detriment to all involved.

In conclusion, these are my thoughts on ethics and morality, and whether it pertains to
humanity’s future or not. But the importance can never be understated, it is necessary to maintain
society and our future. To do so, humanity must learn to be universally moral.

Destruction Incarnate: A Haiku by Lance Angelo

When humanity

Destroys itself in time comes

Nature to prevail

S-ar putea să vă placă și