Journeyman Philosopher

I think fundamentally this is an issue of choice. And the choice that is always apparent, yet can only be found by the intuitive eye.

If morality were merely an endowment of the rich, or a luxury of the well off one would in essence not be able to act upon it if they were neither well-off or rich.

But people do act morally regardless. There are, for example, many instances in war in which people do horrible atrocious things, but as well as people doing wonderful things (Oscar Schindler is a prime example of this). I think what is important is that morality is ‘always’ a choice, be you well off or not. I know even I could easily kill and loot someone I know, and if planned correctly I would assume it very easy to get away with it. Yet I don’t. Instead I value them in accordance with the moral values I hold.

The fact is at this stage we don’t see it as an option to kill and loot someone for our own benefit. But isn’t that really just the state of a naive mind?

We always have the chance to kill but we choose not to, we always have the chance to be what we consider immoral but we choose not to. With the fact of if we do or not aside. What’s important is that we always do have that option, as so we always have that luxury. Although in different situations and applications it requires different risks upon ourselves to apply it.

In times of war are we really exempt from our moral rules. No, I don’t think so. However I do believe that people who do not have confident self confirmed moral rules will feel exempt from them at this time. I don’t mean to say that these people will not benefit from their actions, but I do believe that they still could be condoned as immoral.

But I digress, what really are moral rules and systems? As I have come to believe moral rules are rational beliefs based on self stated assumptions. Individually then based on various assumptions through reason and consistency we can determine what we would consider a moral system. This moral system would be true in light of the assumptions taken.

I bring to reference myself. I live in a place called Calgary, Alberta Canada. I personally consider Alberta to be the redneck province of Canada (we’re known for our cowboys & Alberta Beef). As so it is not a vegetarian friendly place, quite the opposite. In such a light of all the places to not be a vegetarian this would be a great one, yet I still stick to my guns and maintain my diet. Yet morals in the context of my situation would seem irrelevant. Yet I maintain a self projected moral code that makes me responsible for my conduct in any situation.

Nietzsche, however, does make a good point. Custom morality does ‘make stupid’, the day we start basing all our morality simply on what was done in the past and stop thinking about it we stagnate. However I don’t believe philosophers have done this, and I do believe philosophers are the experts in morality. As I have always said ‘As you trust an engineer to build a bridge, trust a philosopher to build morality.’

But I digress. Is the Joker really correct? I don’t think what he said applied to true morality. That being a system that is self-determined and justified. However that which society believes is morality, I would say he is correct.

The question is how can you take away something from someone that is self-constructed? Perhaps by taking away their ability to think, but we can always think regardless how poor or destitute we are. This I think is far beyond the Joker’s power of spreading chaos and fear.

In hindsight however, maybe this is exactly what the Joker was implying. Perhaps the Joker only meant to imply that society doesn’t understand morality and just uses it as a form of convenience. After all he assumed ‘the Batman’ was above the masses in some strange manner, and obviously felt he grasped some concept of true morality.

If this was the case then morals would exist in light of the knowledgeable, but not in terms of the masses.

Hmmmmm, I’m muddled. I will clarify my ideas shortly.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS