Morality isn't free, or least it shouldn't be. The discussion of morality certainly isn't a new discussion (Adam Smith wrote about it is his well know work The Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759). In his work he discussed the idea that what makes us moral is our ability to empathize with one another. The ability to identify with the feelings of plights of others, the theory states, makes us moral in terms of how we define right and wrong. Since we can understand how someone else might feel, this helps us to also feel what would be right or wrong in terms of how our behavior would impact those around us. We don't steal because this would be taking something from someone else and hurt their feelings and deny them the fruit of their labor. An article in Reason Magazine (Nov. 21, 2007) reports on neurological findings from brain imaging studies that indicate that indeed, people do react to the actions and situations to others in areas of the brain that are often associated with right and wrong and moral reasoning. The researchers suggest that this is evidence that we as humans experience a part of our morality as a result of our biology. The article goes on to state that the moral compass that we have is a part of our inborn wiring, much like the capacity for speech.

Another article, this time in Time Magazine (Nov. 20, 2007) discusses a similar concept, suggesting that while the ability to empathize may be inborn, there is the need to shape that moral compass, much like the ability to speak. The research in this case suggests that we have the ability to empathize but that we empathize much more easily with people that we can see in front of us than people that are removed by a great distance of some type. That's why it is almost a compulsion to help someone who is down and out that we know but can easily trash the mailer requesting that we contribute money to help a family in another continent.

Science seeks to understand things by reducing them to their simplest component, it's most basic parts. By doing so, science tries to isolate one component and study that component in it's relationship with to particular variables and thereby hopes to understand it. By nature such complex systems such as morality are not easily defined by science since such complex systems are more than simply the sum of their parts, even if you can define all of the parts associated with morality, and it is fair to say that morality is more than the codification of our ability to empathize. Morality often extends to doing what is right, even if it costs you something or is unpopular.

Morality is more than empathy, it is also driven by ideals. The student who stands in the path of tanks in Tiananmen Square is not driven so much by empathy as he or she is by ideals. A comrade who sacrifices his life for his buddies is driven by an ideal, a split second decision made based on what is the right and noble thing to do in that situation not a decision made by a person who visualizes his friends being hurt and killed, then feels empathy then acts. The ability to be philanthropic across continents and oceans suggest ideals in addition to empathy. Morality is a grand and complex concept because it is has been shaped not only by empathy (an emotional state) but by ideals as well.

Unfortunately, our morality appears to be increasingly shaped not by an interest of others nor an extrinsic set of ideals. Our values seem to be influenced by the idea that our choices and decisions should be acceptable as long as we can make them work. If no one is harmed, then it should be OK to be engaged in the behavior in question, a more utilitarian view of morality. The ongoing debates over social issues very much reflect this very issue. Stem cell research, cloning, religion in the public square and the definition of family are some example of the debates that reflect the core issue of just what is morality, what is right and what is wrong? Has morality changed? Or is the concept of what is right and wrong fluid, to be defined by popular culture? Should morality only be constrained by the impact our behavior would have on those immediately around us? Or should our morality be driven by higher principles?

Social liberals and conservatives both seem to be idealistic when discussing their respective concerns, of what should and should not be. Social liberals would have us contribute our wealth to social programs and work to level the playing field for all concerned. They would have us constrain our use of resources in order to protect the environment. And they would have us make these sacrifices for individuals that we do not know and may never meet. Social conservatives would have us stick with more traditional values, despite the growing cry from some quarters for change it the way we define what is acceptable. They would have us constrain our behavior despite the fact that they cannot always demonstrate how our behavior would harm directly someone else. It is clear that we as human beings believe that our morals should be driven by principles larger than our own self interests, that they should be governed by extrinsic values that transcend our own situation and even our own time period. That some values are indeed timeless. As a result, there is a time in which to be moral is to truly make self sacrifice. There are those that have given their lives in the service of others because of their conviction of morals. Out of that conviction has developed a love for those they serve.

But just as there has been shining examples of this type of morality there has been countless examples of entire civilizations that have crumbled due to corruption. The rise and fall of the Roman empire serves as a marvelous example of the damage that is done when hedonism becomes the primary driver behind personal choices. The road to such moral decay certainly includes a stretch of road governed by relative truth and morality. When we begin to seek to justify our morality by the ability to make it work we set the stage for justification in self indulgence. There is no question that this is progressive, moving us down a road towards a morally bankrupt culture. While we hold to ideals of values and morals that are timeless and transcend us, we also clamor for morals that allow us to indulge our appetites, morals that really cost us very little. But in the end, after chip by chip, our morals have been completely reshaped and then they are not morals at all they are simply justifications we place on our behavior to mend our wounded conscience. The real morality that we hold as a virtue cost us, personally and collectively. If we are to continue to be a moral people, we must first recognize that morality transcends us. Then we must embrace the truth that morals also cost, and we should be willing to pay. Morality isn't free, never has been, never will be.

About the Author

Check out our website, Boys Behavior. Boys Behavior is a site dedicated to Boys and those who have or work with boys. With helpful articles, tips book reviews, links to other sites and an interactive blog, there is sure to be something you will find helpful and valuable. And, he is always giving away free stuff. So give us a visit and let us know what you think. http://boysbehavior.thehomeschoolorganizer.com