GE 11:

Ethics
WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF MORALITY?

Maria Sharalene M. Lamoste BSED Science 3

Ms. Mae Sascheil P. Montallana

Instructor
 Morality, as I prematurely conceived, is laid for ease devouring as a one-edged
notion. That is, a man earns his/her morality badge upon conformation to the norm set
and accepted by the society, the teaching of the supreme being, and the natural law.
However, if an individual opts to detached her/himself from such and traverse a hermit
life, the bestowal of morality is a void. In that sense, morality is directed towards
conformity to righteousness with an arbitrary and absolute standard, and that what falls
on the polar spectrum is withdrawn from the concept of morality. As it is, my
preconception draws that good morality and bad morality is an unseemly disposition,
hence the postulation of one-edged notion of the concept. With such confined
perspective, my foothold was bludgeon by a bulldozed of theories and expert narrative
and rectification of the notion. In turn, the introduction to a refine, expert-laden, and
ambiguous yet justifiable transcription of the algorithm housing morality commendably
tackled my understanding of it. Thereof, a relatively serene and generous mingling with
the concept of morality descends.

The height of thoroughly translating into a

more digestible chunks of the myriad of theories
governing morality postulated from ancestry down
the dawn of the more civilized mental construct has
laid a compartmentalized idea to the human industry.
The compartmentalization is refracted from the
various context and concept of the animation of
morality. This diversity of the conception of morality
is a traced of the dynamic nature of a society and the
distinction of one culture to another. Albeit conceived
dissimilarly, morality is universally defined as the
principle concerning the distinction between right and
wrong or good and bad which in turns guide our behavior. This, by far, the common
ground that bind the polar vantage point of the different society and culture to the
conceptualization and contextualization of morality. As it is, morality is different from
culture and traditions, with an expansive to minuscule feature variation, although right
and wrong forms the value system of the culture and thus, the society. As the previous
learning packet encoded, this variety shows that morality is simply a matter of what is
customary and that it thus is always relative to particular societies. The sociologic view
of morality claimed that no moral principle can be valid except in the societies in which
it is held. Words such as good and bad just mean, it is claimed, “approved in my society”
or “disapproved in my society”. What’s morally right for you may be heinous to other.
Taking for instance the idea of cremation, some countries such as South Korea, some part
of China, Japan, and Thailand have been practicing the ritual since ancient epoch. This
rite conform to their culture, tradition, and religion as Hinduism and Jainism are notable
for not only allowing but prescribing cremation. On the other hand, most Christian
countries often dismissed the idea as pure cruelness. This stance was influenced by its
roots in Judaism, the belief in the resurrection of the body, and the example of Christ's
burial. As my grandmother once vehemently convicted that, “patay na ngani an tawo
hiunong han kasakitan, tapos susunogon pa. Kawara man niyo haros.” With that, it
vitally cements the compartmentalization of morality. The anthropologic and sociologic
lens of morality asserted that there is so much variation from one culture to another, that
the overarching diversity is less likely to be mended and bridged with a single
commonality of moral principle
or judgment. However, the
pursuit of humanity towards
globalization and modernization
seemingly compromises other
“less recognizable” or “inferior”
culture to submit to the
“superior” one as the
compensation of transcending to
the global arena where a
scorching heat of belongingness
and universality is a prerequisite
by default.

A lens of morality sitting next to the abovementioned is theology, which the

Greeks meant "talk about the gods". The precursor of the modern perception of morality
mayhap been tremendously anchored in the mystery and power of divine origin, around
the holy teaching of the supreme one. One assertation in the previous learning material
 have scarred me deeply, in which it
states that, “there can be no morality
without religion”. The theology banks
morality heavily in the knowledge of a
transcendent being, who in turn is a
reference for an objective source. God,
then, is sole embodiment of moral law,
the teaching, way of life, and image of
the gods are the holy reference point for
right and wrong, evil and good. The
Biblical worldview address that God
commands something as good because He Himself is good. Goodness is not something
that is apart from God, or something that God is making Himself subject to. Rather, God,
himself, is good because goodness is part of God's very own nature. Additionally, he does
not submit to any standard or law because he, himself, is the very standard of goodness,
uprightness, and righteousness. The fact that goodness proceeds from His very own
nature, then morality can't be arbitrary. As God's good nature is absolute, morality, then,
is absolute and not relative; hence we can say that what is right in God's eyes are right,
and what's wrong is wrong regardless of our opinions are. However, the porosity of the
standpoint does not enough to submit it to universality. As no matter how refine and
transcendental the standard is, fallacies will surely sip it way. The society of religious
denomination is constructed in such a way that if a man opts to detached himself from
any religious participation and partake submissively in the domain of godliness, he will
be segregated as a hermit and thereby uphold no moral consensus. This definitive
classification of the religious view of morality draws it very own shortcoming. Religion
is futile enough to justify someone’s morality as some who claimed themselves to be at
the doorstep of heaven just used religion as safe ticket, a tranquilizer from the aftermath
of death. They maybe an active participants of church gatherings, bible sharing, masses,
and all, but if reflected no goodness to their words, action, and choices they are no more
than a hollow disciple. Hence, it is not the religion that afford someone their morality, it
is their way of life that conform to the teaching of righteousness and benevolence of the
supreme one even with scarce submission to the strict standard practices of the church
and such.