Morality is very simple at it's foundations. We've tried "our" best to make it seem convoluted. Perhaps to some success considering how many in the world still wrestle with the idea. And why would we intentionally add arbitrary complexities into a system?
- The complexities added suit an agenda and it's aims.
- If people can't understand something, they usually don't bother trying to.
- If complex enough, people will avoid the subject altogether.
These three factors are the foundation of a loop, really. Add complexities>people don't understand them>people avoid them>the manufacturer(s) of said complexities have less societal dissent>repeat. In other words, they can get away with a lot more crap. Take fractional banking for instance. The surface looks very complex and technical. That forces people away...until a few people point out it's simplicity. Then those that benefit from the workings of fractional banking (banks, other financial institutions, as well as colleges and universities that "teach" financial practice) need more scary things to turn people away again. So, they do just that by adding more requirements and rules and loopholes. But in the end, it's the same beast it was beforehand. But perhaps with some new stipulations that further benefit a select group here or there.
Well, the same goes for morality. Base morality doesn't pick favorites. It doesn't benefit one group and put another at a disadvantage. Society, as a whole, is subject to base morality. So, of course, that can't last (sarcasm...please notice it). So the arbitrary complexities start rolling out.
Base morality is constructive versus destructive. That's all. There is no good or evil. Now, that doesn't give sociopaths and in-general shitheads the world over an out. They're still destructive individuals that society could happily go without...but they do serve a purpose. These radical individuals show us the condition of our society. They, in a sense, are our "canary in the coal mine". Since these individuals are destructive by nature, they typically latch on to destructive ideas, philosophies, etc. Thanks to these destructive individuals, the rest of us know what to avoid in our species in order to thrive and progress.
The idea of good and evil may seem cut and dry. But in all actuality it is unnecessary complexity, and has harmed base morality. How? I'm glad I asked! Once the concepts of good and evil were introduced, it allowed for a subjective view of constructive and destructive behaviors. Example? Okay...
Religion.
How many things can you look at that religions around the world say are good, that are actually quite destructive? Exactly. Murder, torture, mutilation, oppression, suppression...religions are rife with self-justified destructive behavior. Self-justified I say? Yes. Religion isn't exclusive in this. Philosophies, political movements, governance systems, economic systems, and obviously societal systems themselves all have their own good and evil paradigms. Religions have taken it a step further, however. Many claiming that their respective deities are the source of morality. And there's your ultimate example of arbitrary complexity, and quite an effective stop-gap of questioning motive.
Even with that said, I can't say that these same things haven't embraced constructive behavior reinforcements. However, the volume of constructive reinforcement in comparison to the volume of destructive reinforcement is troubling.
"You said [insert religious ideology] is just making up that [insert deity] is the source of morality. If that isn't the case, smart guy, what is the source?!"
We are. The human species, that is. What we call morality is akin to a survival instinct. Thus why it is malleable...exploitable. As a species, we have observed what benefits and what hinders our progression and sustainability. These are the constructive and destructive behaviors I spoke of. However, due to the action/reaction nature of this "instinct", it can be manipulated. And the means to implement such manipulation is to convince an individual that their survival and/or well-being depends on whatever perversion of base morality it may be. Whether it is taking lives in the name of a deity or oppressing a society to serve a philosophical agenda (cough post-modernism).
So, morality isn't that complex. It boils down to constructive versus destructive behavior, in every argument. The behavior, idea, or action may have several layers, but you can cut right through them when you knock off good and evil subjective context. And you can better protect yourself from destructive influences when you can see them for what they are.
While I haven't figured out everything on morality, I do believe I am on the right track. I haven't really gone into how we determine what is constructive and what is destructive. I figure that is pretty obvious once the context is presented. But, if that is something people are curious about (at least what I've came to with it), or have their own idea on, feel free to voice it...or, uh...type it...