Phil’s Blog

This blog is a continuity of a previous blog title: “Simple Observations.”
In the process of self evaluation and development, one first set an ideological view of the characteristics of being Human. Such ideological individual is a moral person that uses reason to set forth the development process. A just man whose purpose is to do good and avoid evil.
What are morals? Are morals man made, given by a god, or found within the natural law? It is suggested that the law of nature is the law of the fittest (strongest) and that no morality is involved. Do animals do bad for the sake of doing bad? Or are they acting upon instincts? When a cat plays with a live mousse and does not kill it, or even after the kill the cat does not eat the mousse, did the cat had pleasure causing harm and suffering to the mousse or is it the way of the cat?
To answer such question, one would have to ask if animals have a conscience that permits them to differentiate between good and bad. I would not say for sure that they do, or that they don’t. But observations would permit me to come close to a conclusion, and I may advance that it appears that the animals do not have a conscience, and act primarily on instincts, as assumed.
However, mankind has a conscience, and knows which is good from which is bad; therefore, mankind has the capability to do harm for the sake of doing it. And this since to other human I am writing is evident and does not require any more explanation.
From that conclusion, comes forth the concept of morality, which is to do good and avoid evil. So that such characteristic is intrinsic to the Human concept. However, it does not mean yet that all human are moral individuals, it just implies that the concept of morality exist within each of us. It is now left to each one to define a set of moral principles to which one will adhere and forge one’s life. Those morals are the foundation for the standard of living that one will choose for oneself.
It is important to add here; that such concept then obliges another concept which is that mankind has a free will. And with that will, one will decide to either do good or do bad.
But as advanced earlier do all human have that characteristic, and do all human have control or the potential for control to make a decision? Trough observations of oneself, one realizes that many of one’s thoughts and actions are impulsive or spontaneous, and by such do not result from clear reasoning, but from habits. Some pushed through by outside stimulus. In such light it is then evident that not all actions or thoughts are willed. But the potential to gain greater control is indeed a value option, since through reflections (after the actions or thoughts) one has the possibility for change. Those reflections create hypotheses for one’s possible development.
Hypotheses can be defined as either Live or Dead. A live hypothesis is one that appeals to us, and is seen as a real possibility, while a dead hypothesis is one which notion does not make any connection and has no credibility for us.
The decision between hypotheses is called an option. Options can be living or dead, forced or avoidable, momentous or trivial. And a genuine option is one that is forced, living and momentous.
It result that morality is a live hypothesis and a genuine option, and such the ideological human is one that has chosen to be a moral and rational individual not just by desire but as a result of duty, the duty that comes from being a human being. This theory is very similar to Kant’s theory of obligation. For those who will wish to have some further readings I posted a blog on Kant’s theory of obligation.