philosophy is a science of reasoning and logic.
nothing holds true, where an observable dichotomy is picked up on.
and then the premises as well as the conclusions are torn apart to make it be known that there is one single clear truth that is either kept or violated.
there is no place for inconsistency in philosophical reasoning of right and wrong.
ethics, morality, a sense of conscientious living and encouraging others to do so, comes about only when one is clear as to whether one believes in being receptive to the concept of right and wrong.
some people say they are abiding by morals because their religion asked them to. others say, that religion and morality are not interchangeable. that morality is a sense of right and wrong, & in case of religion it is guided by religious teachings and principles, and in case of logical reasoning, it is an automatic thing for people to follow morally correct thinking, feelings and behaviors without being religious. by some people, religion is called a private matter or something that does not matter at all, for they might say that one can still be following religious principles, without being religious in the normative sense.
in the wake of everything political, thus, religion as an organized institute is considered undesirable. that notion, coupled with the fact that in the world of materialism and instinctual pleasure and luxury, anything moral from being careful about hurting feelings of others, to stealing others’ livelihoods, is deemed fine as a survival strategy.
and there we have it, a sense of self deception, a perpetuated cycle of remorseless cunning personality developed in an effort to go with the flow, regardless of what it means to be in violation of the morality which otherwise could be the only source of purity within one’s heart and mind.
so, different generations are always at odds with conventional and non conventional trends and behaviors.
furthermore, within the persons, a discord , a discomfort of thought and action, is always going on, because post decisional guilts, hold all moves stalled, moves for the future, moves to compensate for the past misdeeds.
eventually, sooner or later, many people eventually make peace with their conditions, but still within them is buried this sense of confusion that they are who they are, not because they wanted to be, but that they did not have any choice of staying originally true to their morality, as everyone else seemed like having fun, because they did not practice living by right and wrong, so why should one be restraining oneself from such comforts.
that said, what does clarity of ‘moral’ concept means to us?
when we make a decision, are we not to live with its consequences?
if we run away from our selves, because we are running away from the world as it is, are we not running twice as hard, twice as painfully?
what can be done to make sure that whoever goes down the path of unclear judgments and decisions, can at least be decent to the extent of living with the consequence of her/ his decision/s?
do people ‘see’ that clarity of concept is the basis on which they can safely rest their rational or even irrational actions, but first they must be clear and openly accept the conceptual basis of their actions.
private and public actions, personal and social dealings are a step ahead - a topic for another time.
should not we all be brave enough to state that our concept is clear on what our motives are based in, be it x, y, or z?
but in essence, don’t we need clarity?
any thoughts?