Formalities
Sometimes, I wonder if morality is only a human formality. I have heard someone say that humans are only merciful and moral because they deem themselves above animals and each other. Where is this mercy coming from? Who does it serve to be moral, ourselves or others?
When I think of morality, what comes to mind denotes the liquid form of forgiveness that seeps by the drop into our actions. We refuse to take the most profitable or advantageous route at times because we believe ourselves to be above certain actions. We would not torture the pig we have to kill because we think it is cruel, and we do not kill our enemies once they have surrendered for the same reason. Our contradictions makes little difference to us, as we drive on through our misconceived creations of how a moral being should react. Yet the question still burns in asking, who does it serve to be moral? It is immoral to mutilate a corpse, but why? Who are we shielding from harm, if the subject is dead? Could it be ourselves, because we believe it is wrong to go farther than is necessary?
Why then, would war still be raging in the world? Why do we slaughter each other if we are such noble creatures at heart? Is moralty only an excuse for us to feel better about ourselves, to give us reward for the lack of cruelty when we are not feeling threatened? Where was morality after september 11th? The urge to strike overcame mercy and human morality, and the bombing of middle eastern civilians, did that truly come out of a moral society? In the end, we are simply imperfect beings. Our call to morality comes only at times of peace. Where had "thou shall not kill" gone when vengence boiled on the minds of millions? It is superficial to say that we are good and proper beings, when morality is a trait that can be so easily broken by every other emotion.
Most animals are single minded in their approach to predator and prey. The kitten would not hesitate to toy with her food before she devours it. Does it truly understand such cruelty? Without regards to such human considerations, the act itself does not make the kitten guilt ridden. Should humans have a mind to feel guilty? Are we condemned to feel guilt because of our ability to think and grasp abstract concepts such as mercy and morality? Animal activists boycott KFC chicken because the chicken farms did not deliver to the chickens a swift and merciful death. Are we bound by our ability to think to decrease the suffering of the chickens, because we are "above" it? Further more, would it be immoral to waste our food because it would defeat the purpose of killing the animal? Because of course, to know that the chicken had died in vain would be such a horrible, immoral tragedy. How far should this morality go in order to satisfy our need to deny our savagery?
When I think of morality, what comes to mind denotes the liquid form of forgiveness that seeps by the drop into our actions. We refuse to take the most profitable or advantageous route at times because we believe ourselves to be above certain actions. We would not torture the pig we have to kill because we think it is cruel, and we do not kill our enemies once they have surrendered for the same reason. Our contradictions makes little difference to us, as we drive on through our misconceived creations of how a moral being should react. Yet the question still burns in asking, who does it serve to be moral? It is immoral to mutilate a corpse, but why? Who are we shielding from harm, if the subject is dead? Could it be ourselves, because we believe it is wrong to go farther than is necessary?
Why then, would war still be raging in the world? Why do we slaughter each other if we are such noble creatures at heart? Is moralty only an excuse for us to feel better about ourselves, to give us reward for the lack of cruelty when we are not feeling threatened? Where was morality after september 11th? The urge to strike overcame mercy and human morality, and the bombing of middle eastern civilians, did that truly come out of a moral society? In the end, we are simply imperfect beings. Our call to morality comes only at times of peace. Where had "thou shall not kill" gone when vengence boiled on the minds of millions? It is superficial to say that we are good and proper beings, when morality is a trait that can be so easily broken by every other emotion.
Most animals are single minded in their approach to predator and prey. The kitten would not hesitate to toy with her food before she devours it. Does it truly understand such cruelty? Without regards to such human considerations, the act itself does not make the kitten guilt ridden. Should humans have a mind to feel guilty? Are we condemned to feel guilt because of our ability to think and grasp abstract concepts such as mercy and morality? Animal activists boycott KFC chicken because the chicken farms did not deliver to the chickens a swift and merciful death. Are we bound by our ability to think to decrease the suffering of the chickens, because we are "above" it? Further more, would it be immoral to waste our food because it would defeat the purpose of killing the animal? Because of course, to know that the chicken had died in vain would be such a horrible, immoral tragedy. How far should this morality go in order to satisfy our need to deny our savagery?