Believe it or not, the following is my attempt to provide a very short post about the nature of morality:
I think morality as a general concept
(determining what is "right" and "wrong") is part and parcel of group
interaction - even, in a very real way, among animals of widely varying
degrees of intelligence. It is, at its most basic level, part of
survival instinct. It is focused on what "is" - at the most basic
level. It is focused on "how" interaction needs to occur in order to
perpetuate the species and, although instinctual rather than conscious,
really is "morality" at heart.
I think morality among humans,
specifically, has the exact same foundation - but our ability to think
outside ourselves allows us to move from the most practical, biological,
survival aspect of morality to a philosophical foundation that expands
from a purely group-based paradigm to include a focus on the person
even, sometimes, at the expense of the group. It is focused on what
"should be" - and, frankly, that transition, although important to us,
is what complicates morality exponentially and makes things get really
messy at times.
Finally, I see the existence of agency (the
ability to think about and choose one's actions consciously, even when
they conflict with the morality of one's community) as the monkey wrench
in the ease with which morality can be evaluated and determined, since
it is the only thing that posits the need for competing moralities - one
communal and one personal that can and do conflict.
is an incredibly subjective thing, but most people want it to be
objective - since objective morality is SO much easier to implement and
"obey". Frankly, the most extreme version of objective, communal morality we have
within Mormon theology is Lucifer's plan - and I think it is important to understand that simple fact.
Enid vs. Banality 2/26/2017
16 hours ago