Are we moral?

This was the essay I wrote last semester.(it seems like last semester was the only time in my life which I wrote so many essays;)The topic was 'Are human beings moral?' and my answer, since I had to pick one clear side, was 'No'. Well I surely think humans are moral in some ways:)


Between ‘Human Beings’ and ‘Morality’

‘Noblesse oblige’ seems to be the ‘universal’ phrase. Originated from French, this phrase is widely used in America, Japan, Korea, in their newspapers, magazines, books, and even TV. Then what does this phrase mean? Noblesse oblige means, literally, ‘nobility oblige’. But its general usage is the figurative term; ‘the moral obligation of those of high birth, powerful social position, etc., to act with honor, kindliness, generosity, etc’. What comes along with this phrase is numerous ‘nobles’ trying to show their morality.
It isn’t just ‘nobles’ who are trying to be moral. Simply everyone tries to be moral, but human beings aren’t exactly ‘moral’. Here, morality refers to ‘a standard or a rule that one ought to follow in accordance to consciousness of individuals, public opinion, tradition, etc’, and being moral refers to ‘living up to morality’.

To start with, humans have so-called ‘emotion’. Humans have their emotion from people to people, situation to situation, and time to time. Emotion hinders from viewing a situation (or a condition) objectively and accurately. Emotion hinders, furthermore, from acting right and reasonable behavior in accordance to one’s judgment. And therefore, humans are not moral. Say there are two people, A and B, who are friends of each other. A has a greater output than Bin pretty much everything. Naturally, B would feel jealous of A. In this case, would B be sincere and honest, with his (or her) full heart, towards A? No. Likewise, as long as humans have emotion, they are not moral.

Moreover, humans have ‘reason’. Humans have the ability to judge and discern things unlike other animals. It is the ‘reason’ we have. Based on our ‘reason’, humans judge which is beneficial to us and which is not. Thus human reason tells us to choose the thing that is beneficial to ourselves. That is, moral things are not considered in the first place according to human reason. For instance, there is a man who is in a hurry because he might be late for important appointment. He is desperately heading toward the meeting place, and finds an injured dog bleeding on the street alone. There are two choices; saving the dog by taking to vet and be on the right time for appointment. His reason would probably tell him to choose the latter one, while the moral one is the former one. That is, human reason takes the beneficial one rather than the moral one.

Finally, humans don’t know what exactly is ‘moral’. As defined earlier, moral varies tradition to tradition, people to people, and time to time. For an individual, morality is constant collision between one’s own consciousness, public, and tradition. A line between moral and immoral is very uncertain. Let’s take a look at Chinese foot-binding, Chanzu. Chanzu is old Chinese tradition that binds the feet of young girls painfully tight to prevent further growth. Women who followed Chanzu, or other people who forced these women to follow Chanzu would probably have followed the ‘tradition’. Apparently, nevertheless, Chanzu is wrong in ethical sense, such as female rights and freedom. Therefore, humans are not moral.

As a matter of fact, people strive to be moral. They attend to various community services, donate their property, and try to be considerate. But humans are never moral, as long as their emotion and reason are there. Humans are never moral, until they truly know what ‘moral’ really is.