Moral Support

“I’m just here for moral support” might be one of my favorite ways to be anywhere. Most often, because it means I get to watch someone doing something that's in some way challenging. As much as I enjoy being the one who needs the support, whether it’s running a marathon or something else, I find it exciting when the roles are flipped. Our ability to be there for one another is largely dependent on our understanding of one another. That we recognize something is difficult for someone, that they need support, either through our own experience (empathy) or understanding of the experience (sympathy). Moral support requires having either empathy or sympathy. This might be a good place to begin our evaluation of morality.

Morality

1. A doctrine or system of moral conduct

2. Conformity to ideals of right human conduct

That we do not take credit for what happens to us unintentionally is an expression of morals. When something works out for us that is not part of our plan, we have the choice to take credit for it by claiming it to be all part of our plan. Usually, however, we admit to the coincidence. We cannot take credit for the works of the universe, but we can take credit for the works of our own doing. For instance, when working towards a goal and achieving said goal, one can accept the congratulations and the fruits of their labor. So, when Earth provides everything we need, why do we put ourselves above nature to dominate it instead of working with nature, with life itself, to prosper? Our dominion over nature is inherently unnatural, unjust because we cannot take credit for the fact that food grows on trees. We can plant a tree and share in the nutrition that comes from it. Perhaps if we own the tree we planted, we can charge for the labor of providing nutrition, but we cannot charge for the nutrition itself, because the nutrition itself is the labor of the tree.

That food grows on trees is one of the natural processes of Earth, and therefore, the fruits are not to be hoarded and sold to the best bidder. For everyone is in the pursuit of life, and hunger demands to be satiated, not prolonged at the expense of an individual’s health. Nonetheless, our collective confliction over what is right and what is wrong stems from the long-held beliefs provided by tradition. Belief is, though, a precondition, a predetermination rather, of what can be possible. Nonetheless, our “system of moral conduct” was never developed in full because it excluded entire populations of people. There can be no moral conduct when the white male created it for other white men, because the rest of the population is thereby deemed lesser than and is therefore available for any right or wrong conduct to be made towards them. Morals, then, follow the beliefs of tradition, rather than being a reflection of the conditions of the present. This is, in large part, due to conflicting morals.

Evaluating morality first as a system of moral conduct asks us to consider what the system accepts. However, it is through this lens of acceptance that morals within mortals differ. What we accept depends on our experiences, and therefore, what we have witnessed as accepted before. When we do not punish injustice, we then accept it. The more we accept injustice, the more evidence we give it towards being morally correct. Our idea of moral conduct is thus conditioned by accountability. What others hold us accountable for shapes what we believe is correct moral conduct. This, then, depends on who we are surrounded by. Conflicts of moral conduct are the result of passed-down beliefs and behaviors, and are reinforced by sharing the same morals with those we surround ourselves with. We therefore need a diversified understanding of morals by sharing our lives with people who think and believe differently from ourselves, without attempting to force others to think and believe as we do.

However, there lies a great problem with this. As many systems of belief teach that one must persuade those who think and believe differently to think and believe as they do, otherwise, they will be punished. This largely prohibits diversity from shaping human morals because systems of belief do not allow for other systems of belief. Yet shouldn’t there be some larger moral understanding of humanity that is removed from these systems and instead stands on its own? Perhaps we might understand this as the nature of emotion. That fear, happiness, sadness, anger, disgust, joy, and excitement are all visible. We can then, regardless of belief, take the side of human emotion to relate and understand. It seems then that based on human emotion, we should be able to differentiate right and wrong on a collective scale, and illegitimize suffering as a necessary means to “saving.” When I look at the news, I do not see how the suffering of others can be justified for any reason.

Morals are then conformed to by the ideals of what is “right.” When we accept human suffering as a “right” trade-off for something else, we are then justifying it and paving the way for future suffering. This again calls for morals to have accountability. Morals are then further conditioned by conformity. They require a set of people to conform to their ideals so that the only accountability reinforced is that of the ideal. However, because these differ (but not really) from belief system to belief system, in the name of preserving said system, there then derives a conflict of morale.

Morale

1. The mental and emotional condition of an individual or group with regard to function or tasks at hand

2. A sense of common purpose with respect to a group

3. The level of individual psychological well-being based on such factors as a sense of purpose a confidence in the future

Our moral issues might then be addressed through the lens of conflicting morale, using the second of these definitions, that our common sense of purpose seems to be at odds. For when one belief system believes in one purpose, and another believes in another, there can be no common sense of purpose between them. However, our moral support, in a broader sense as a human collective, should be reflective of a life lived as though we have time, as though our choices will impact one another. Yet we fail to see this because we separate ourselves from others based on belief. Distance, space, is the great separator in morals. Whether it be the distance that time allows or the physical space between us and an instance, we justify our lack of moral support through these means. That something occurring to humanity that is far from us is out of our reach, and therefore, out of our hands. However, a wound inflicted on one is inevitably a wound inflicted on us all.

We could, instead, consider that human emotion provides the basis for moral support already. That we support one another in their pursuits of life, for it is our common purpose. A community wants to thrive, just as an individual does, but the collective must recognize that it is all their combined efforts, in contribution to the community, not themselves, that make for thriving. Self-preservation might be one of the greatest threats to society and the most pressing injuries we need to tend to of our time. The contributions required for preservation result in immoral actions, yet those actions are justified by perceiving a threat and therefore a need for action in the name of “self-preservation.” This again reinforces the idea of accountability. When a land of people believes in “self-preservation,” they will not hold accountable the actions that are taken in the name of it. Everyone believes that everyone is entitled to it.

So, it is true then that the predetermined conditions of one’s upbringing will construct and reinforce morals. That which is justified can only be made as such through the lens of what someone believed to be “right” at the time. Morals are then always at odds when we fail to consider human emotion. Because instead of considering injustice as a harm done to one is a harm done to all, we view it as an isolated incident, thus diminishing accountability. Beliefs justify action rather than action justifying the belief. For if no belief system believes in murder, then there should be no war. It seems that the shared common ground found among these systems is that the ends justify the means. But do they if their morals were abandoned along the way?

The morale of a system depends on the people to share something in common, and often, these systems will make an enemy out of another system of belief, so that the morale in their system is strong as they have something in common: an enemy. This seems misguided for any belief system to raise morale around. Nonetheless, everyone wants something to root for, so we rally behind an identity we see ourselves in. But are we not all human? Should we not all be rooting for the same thing? In our error in judgment, we are a divided collective. So, then, we do not work towards any common purpose because our idea of thriving is constantly at odds based on our beliefs. However, are they so different when we consider that everybody requires the same basic needs? When we put humanity, the collective, at the forefront of our considerations, is there any way to justify the means? For any decision to be made with morals in mind, either empathy or sympathy must be present. Both are absent when we justify the suffering, or harm, of others. The preservation of a system that justifies these things is then dependent on these things for its own existence. In which case, the system that needs the reinforcement of injustice will seek it out for its beliefs to be upheld.

Collective morale being at odds makes progress in any direction difficult to achieve. So, we remain with our beliefs of what is right and wrong, and we remain surrounded by those who share our moral compass. This allows us to share in an illusion together that progress is taking place as we shape an echo-chamber of similar voices. When we reject other systems, ideas, or beliefs, we reject acceptance and therefore repeat the cycles of traditions. Every tradition has built in the period of collapse and gone on to rebuild the belief system in the aftermath. With some reshaping, but mostly, just revamping. Unless we are to depart from the cycles of familiarity, we are bound to repeat them.

When we consider ourselves present for moral support, we should consider that our presence is required by human emotion. Emotions are better felt when they’re supported to be felt. Otherwise, emotion is felt but lacks the legs to stand on. The point of morals is to share in the understanding of human behavior and to judge it based on the standards we set as a collective. So as long as the standards are lowered, human behavior will be ravenous for destruction. If everything is on the table, anything can be consumed. The tempted will fall. So, it depends on everyone to treat others with acceptable behavior and to condemn the actions of injustice. Even if it isn’t now that you are the one in need of support, the time will come when you do. So if you do not say anything now, who will say something for you?