The Moral Conundrum

When it all comes down to morality, most of us believe that there are only two kinds of people - the moral ones and the immoral ones. "Why not?" you may ask. Everything in this universe is made up of poles - the positive and the negative, the masculine and the feminine, the matter and the antimatter. I did talk about the two poles of everything in my post titled 'The Two Faces'.

And this human trait is no different. There are murderers, there are psychopaths, there are sociopaths and there are rapists - there are thieves, burglars and robbers... They are branded as 'immoral'.

But let me ask you a question I often ponder upon - is the degree of their immorality same?

Is a murderer as equally immoral as a robber? Is a robber as equally immoral as a rapist? Is a rapist as equally immoral as a kidnapper?

The crux of my question is - 'Is morality analog or digital?' Does it have to be characterized by a degree? Or does it have only two states - morality and immorality? This is an interesting question. We know all immoral people are not equally immoral. Yet, we still brand them as 'immoral'. And why is that? Why do our minds classify something that is not meant to be classified in the first place?

Because morality is not a 'trait'; it is rather a 'state'. A person is neither purely moral, nor purely immoral. But what about the poles then - the positive and the negative? As I mentioned once, R.L. Stevenson said in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, "Man is not truly one, but truly two." Every single person on this planet has both moral and immoral sides. It is what is in excess that gives him the title... Consider a simple example. If there are 5 electrons and 2 protons in an atom, what would you call it? A negative atom. Is it because the atom only has negative charge? No. It does have some positive charge. The problem is that all the effects that you see as just 'negative', hence the name.

But then, is the concept of morality as easy as simple Mathematics?

Here's where things become tricky - no matter what we do, how much we try; we cannot stop being immoral. Ever. The only moral life is that of a fetus inside its mother's womb. Right from the time we are born, we have been killing - we have taken the lives of millions of plants (living beings) to satisfy our needs... We have killed millions of tiny insects and creatures while walking, and without even being aware of the same. In a way, we have killed, and there is no way out. Because, to survive, we need to do it. So, right from our birth, we have been immoral. The negativity grows, until we do something to balance this.

Say, for example, there is a person in your class who is always bullying others. He would be termed as a 'bad guy'. His impression of a bad person grows as he bullies more people. Other students in the class will keep on getting a stronger impression about this character of his. But what can change that? If that guy stops bullying other people and starts helping them instead, there would be a change in people's perceptions. He will stop being the 'bad guy', and he will turn into a 'good guy'. That is the point. Until we do something 'moral' to balance all the 'immoral' things we have been doing since we were born, we would be nothing more than a pile of increasing negativity.

But then, who decides what is moral? And what immoral? Some say, pure morality is a state when you 'do not cause any harm to anyone'. But, what exactly is 'harm'? How do you define 'harm'? Isn't it relative?

Suppose you testify against someone who is accused of bribery. Your act will be termed 'moral'. Because, you put away an immoral person. But hasn't it caused 'harm' to the accused person? Then, isn't it immoral?

For centuries, humans have experienced arduous situations, and then established a set of rules for defining 'morality'. But sometimes, situations are not so easy... Here is one such interesting case. Choose for yourself:

Consider a hypothetical situation where a giant ball is rolling towards five people sitting on a bench. The ball is going to crush them all, and no one can do anything about it. Except you. 'You' can change the course of the ball to only one direction, where a person is walking down the road. So should you save the five people and kill the one who was never even going to be killed? Or should you let them die, so as to not kill that one person?

This is a situation where both choices are equally moral, and, equally immoral. So, in such a situation, choosing any one of them should not have any 'net' effect on you. But, someone is getting killed. And you are the reason for that. Would your mind be at peace after such an event, even though there is no 'net' change in your moral and immoral sides? In such situations, is there a way to define 'immorality'?

Consider another situation. The ones who are 'immoral', i.e. who have greater negativity, can do almost anything - they can kill, rob, rape - anything, because, well, they are immoral. And the ones with the morals have all the restrictions. In such a case, it is natural that there might be greater number of immoral people than the moral ones. But doesn't it violate the very balance of universe? Would you, in such a case, believe in the 'balance of the world' and the 'neutrality' of the poles or the 'Second Law of Thermodynamics' which says, 'The entropy (randomness) of the universe is constantly increasing'?

The choice is up to you...

I will leave you pondering. Ultimately, it is all about our minds. The mind is a tool which can cause revolutions. It can change the course of actions. And surely, it can cause conundrums...