Consequence VS Morality
One of the possible personal battles in life anyone can experience.
Which side would you be on?
Which side would be a safer bet?
Consequence has a connotation of fear. By fearing an outcome, one will have to do something to prevent facing it. So, let’s just say it is a serious consequence that can be detrimental to you in very sense of the word. Human instincts tell us we need to protect ourselves; we need to find a way through at all costs.
However, if… to protect ourselves from harm, we need to challenge our moral values? Which one will you choose? I know some people do hold their moral values high, proud of what they have stood by for so many years. Maintaining a certain level of morality serves us well. It does not need a rocket scientist to tell you it feels good to be morally good. It can be rewarding at times too.
Now the million dollar question: What if one day, you are faced with a situation where the consequence is too much to take that you have to sacrifice your moral standards to exercise the most basic human instinct of protecting yourself? Men are not born to be morally upright, but man, like all other animals, is born to live and survive. Protecting oneself is an innate quality for survival. Morals, however, are inculcated, or shall we say socially constructed. Socially constructed ideologies are always bound to be heavily criticized. How much is your moral values worth? And how much is your sanity worth? (If the consequence causes damage to your mental well-being)
I remember the case of an air crash in the Cordillera in 1973 where the survivors in that crash had to resort to cannibalism to survive the freezing conditions and prevent them from starving to death. If you think it is wrong to eat human flesh, you may face the possibility of death. Families of the dead were outraged that their loved ones were eaten even after they were dead. Debates raged on and religious ethics and values were even brought in. In the end, the religions’ viewpoint is that under such a circumstance, the eating of another person’s flesh is justifiable. “under such a circumstance” –implies there is a consequence (death) to be feared, the human instincts are activated, the moral values give way.
I guess when these 2 aspects are pushed to their limits, consequence do have an edge over morality. So, will you be driven by consequences or still stand firm on your morals the next time you are put in an unimaginable spot?
-dakepaike-
Which side would you be on?
Which side would be a safer bet?
Consequence has a connotation of fear. By fearing an outcome, one will have to do something to prevent facing it. So, let’s just say it is a serious consequence that can be detrimental to you in very sense of the word. Human instincts tell us we need to protect ourselves; we need to find a way through at all costs.
However, if… to protect ourselves from harm, we need to challenge our moral values? Which one will you choose? I know some people do hold their moral values high, proud of what they have stood by for so many years. Maintaining a certain level of morality serves us well. It does not need a rocket scientist to tell you it feels good to be morally good. It can be rewarding at times too.
Now the million dollar question: What if one day, you are faced with a situation where the consequence is too much to take that you have to sacrifice your moral standards to exercise the most basic human instinct of protecting yourself? Men are not born to be morally upright, but man, like all other animals, is born to live and survive. Protecting oneself is an innate quality for survival. Morals, however, are inculcated, or shall we say socially constructed. Socially constructed ideologies are always bound to be heavily criticized. How much is your moral values worth? And how much is your sanity worth? (If the consequence causes damage to your mental well-being)
I remember the case of an air crash in the Cordillera in 1973 where the survivors in that crash had to resort to cannibalism to survive the freezing conditions and prevent them from starving to death. If you think it is wrong to eat human flesh, you may face the possibility of death. Families of the dead were outraged that their loved ones were eaten even after they were dead. Debates raged on and religious ethics and values were even brought in. In the end, the religions’ viewpoint is that under such a circumstance, the eating of another person’s flesh is justifiable. “under such a circumstance” –implies there is a consequence (death) to be feared, the human instincts are activated, the moral values give way.
I guess when these 2 aspects are pushed to their limits, consequence do have an edge over morality. So, will you be driven by consequences or still stand firm on your morals the next time you are put in an unimaginable spot?
-dakepaike-
posted by fukepaike at 1:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home