So, imagine you’re at a party and there’s a big bowl of chips in front of you. You know it’s not really polite to eat all the chips, but your stomach is growling and they look so darn tasty.
Morality is like that little voice in your head that tells you to share the chips with others, even if it means you won’t get as many for yourself. But at the same time, morality is also like the growling in your stomach that tells you to eat the chips, because you’re hungry and they’re right there.
It’s a paradox because even though you know you should share the chips, you want to eat them all for yourself. Morality asks you to do one thing, while your instincts tell you to do another.
In the end, it’s up to you to decide what’s more important – following the rules or satisfying your hunger. But remember, if you eat all the chips, you might not get invited back to the party!
In Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, morality is a central theme explored throughout the novel. The protagonist, Rodion Raskolnikov, commits a brutal murder and then grapples with his conscience as he tries to justify his actions.
Dostoyevsky explores the idea that morality is not just a set of abstract principles or rules, but something that is deeply ingrained in the human psyche. Raskolnikov’s actions are not just a violation of the law, but a violation of his moral code, and this internal conflict drives much of the novel’s plot.
Throughout the novel, Dostoyevsky also highlights the tension between individual morality and societal morality. Raskolnikov’s theory that certain individuals are “extraordinary” and can break the rules of society without consequences is challenged by the reality of his guilt and the harsh punishment he faces.
Ultimately, Dostoyevsky suggests that true morality is not just about following rules or avoiding punishment, but about acknowledging the interconnectedness of all human beings and recognizing the inherent value of human life. Raskolnikov’s journey toward redemption and his acceptance of his guilt can be seen as a reflection of this idea, as he comes to realize the importance of compassion, humility, and responsibility in shaping his moral compass.
Nietzsche believed that traditional morality, which he called “slave morality,” was based on resentment and weakness. He believed that it was created by the weak and oppressed as a way of getting revenge on the strong and powerful. According to Nietzsche, traditional morality values things like humility, meekness, and self-denial, which he saw as a form of self-negation.
Instead, Nietzsche proposed a new morality, which he called “master morality.” This new morality would value strength, power, and self-assertion. He believed individuals should strive to overcome their weaknesses and embrace their passions and desires.
On the other hand, Plato explored the idea that morality is based on objective standards of truth and justice, rather than on individual or cultural beliefs.
According to Plato, the key to understanding morality was to understand the nature of reality itself. He believed there was a transcendent realm of Forms or Ideas, which were the ultimate objects of knowledge and truth. In this realm, there were objective standards of truth and justice that provided the basis for moral judgment.
All these things are still debatable.
That’s the morality paradox in a nutshell – sometimes what’s right or wrong depends on the situation and the individual. It’s like trying to solve a tricky puzzle where the answer changes depending on who’s solving it. It’s complex, but also kind of fascinating.
Given a choice, if there is no GOD and no judgment, will you be moral or follow the moral norms which are accepted by your society, or be yourself and define your morality?
