Conscience or Cowardice

What stops you from doing ‘bad’ things? Is it because it is immoral? or because it is a crime? Is it your conscience or is it fear?

To a large extent, there is an agreement on what is moral and what is not. Killing another man, for example, is unanimously seen as immoral. Eating another man is also seen as immoral. But what about sexual relations between two male persons? Suddenly the line between moral and immoral isn’t so clearly defined anymore. Or let’s take it down a notch, what about eating domesticated animals? eating a dog, a cat — is that immoral or not, to you? Many would say that’s just plain wrong! but what is the difference between eating a dog and eating chicken? or sheep, or goats or fish — all domesticated animals to some people. The point I am trying to make with this intro is that citing morality as a reason for being outraged by something is oftentimes a weak argument. Why exactly is it immoral? because it feels wrong? because religion or science says it's wrong? because your culture says it's wrong? because the internet people say it's wrong? Morality — or immorality preferably is so subjective and that is why we need something much more concrete — the law.

The law governs how individuals should behave in society. The law regulates our behaviour and ensures that people are held accountable for their actions. It keeps us in check. And there are consequences for those who err. But the law didn’t manifest out of thin air. You see, it is a reflection of society. It is influenced by religion and science and culture, even though its sole purpose isn’t morality but, fairness. However, the main difference between the law and the subjectivity of morality is that the law is a collective derivative of what a group of people have agreed on. There is no ‘I think’, or ‘you think’, there is only what the law says. And the law is only a reflection of the times it was derived in. And so the law can permit ‘immorality’ if the majority of its influence is ‘immoral’. This is to say that if your compass for what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, what is acceptable and what is not; is based solely on the law, then it means your compass is based on what ‘the mob’ agrees upon. And that is perfectly okay. But, it could suggest that you are in turn a derivative. A reflection of the law, a reflection of the current religious, scientific or cultural practices and beliefs and therefore merely a consequence of the times you were born into. Again, not a bad thing. But, it feels limited. Ultimately, everything is.

If you would allow yourself to think beyond the law and beyond society’s inconsistencies on what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, and then ask yourself certain questions -

Is the intentional killing of another person okay? Why is it okay? or why is it not? Do the circumstances matter? or do they not? What makes one circumstance acceptable and the other unacceptable? Is it justified if the victim was an objectively evil person? Is premeditated murder less aggravating than accidental murder? Does it even matter?

If you would allow yourself to think beyond the law and beyond society’s inconsistencies on what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, then you would find yourself thinking in nuances and spirals. I have made an example out of murder because it is universally agreed that it is wrong. But I ask you — if you were put in a circumstance in which you consider taking the life of another to be an option; whether it be to avenge a loved one, to cover a dark secret of significant consequence, to protect and to serve a cause you’re loyal to; whatever the case may be for you; whatever makes you tick — what would hold you back? Your conscience? — your personal sense of wrong and right and integrity. Or your cowardice? — the fear of what would happen if anyone were to find out; whether a harmless acquaintance or the representatives of the law. How many things would you do if you had complete assurance that no one would ever, ever find out? Not even spiritual presences.

Now, this is not an encouragement for anyone to do any of the things they consider as acceptable but, society or worse — the law, have ordained as unacceptable.

It’s a call for honesty, for open discussion, for being open to breaking the barriers in your head. Thoughts are not illegal and the immorality of your thoughts is mostly subjective. There is a lot of fear in the air, all around us, it has permeated through every space. Unfortunately, the people who say outrageous things in our society are often labelled as clout chasers who don’t seek to explore the nuances of reality but, only to cause outrage in exchange for clicks and online fame. We are not a hive and you should be bothered if all of your thoughts and opinions are in complete agreement with ‘the mob’.

But, recently I met someone that challenged all this. This person believes they are rational and strong and well-equipped to navigate life. This person sees their alignment with ‘the mob’ as the obvious way of life and doesn’t believe they are a derivative of the times but, that it is simply a fortunate coincidence that their individual beliefs and thought process are in sync with the most popular universal views of life. And this individual has left me wondering if I should be the one bothered that all of my thoughts and opinions are in complete disagreement with ‘the mob’. If we are in fact a hive in some ways and people like me are the problem — the criminals and murderers and uncultured and immoral that would rationalise anything and everything because — nuance ✨ After all, if you can think it, then you can become it.