Morals and morality
I think that most of the people that I know are basically “moral” people. That is, that in their everyday interactions they will not intentionally harm, insult, disrespect, or steal from those around them. I know a good number of people that will go out of their way to relate positively to others and help them whenever possible.
That being said, I also know many people that while all of the above is true for them, their actions in real-time is dependent on the level of connection that they feel toward “others” around them. They may have a number of distinct sets of moral values for family, friends, acquaintances, and strangers. There are those who have separate codes of behavior towards others based on the gender, age, race, color, religion or nationality of those that they relate to. In other words, they all hold morals, but their morality is selective.
I would like to think that I do not relate to morality selectively but cannot claim that I never do so. Whether I myself or others are “guilty” of being selective morally, I would suggest that there is no real morality other than universal morality.
To explain and justify that statement I offer just one extreme example of moral selectivity that, in my eyes, results in a total lack of moral behavior.
TRIGGER WARNING – THE FOLLOWING RELATES TO DEATH AND VIOLENCE.
On October 7, 2023 Hamas breached the border fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel and proceeded to attack both military personnel and targets, as well as thousands of unarmed residents in the immediate area (both Israelis and non-Israelis). The end result of this attack and the subsequent holding of hostages by the Hamas, was the intentional killing of approximately 900 non-combatants – including approximately 40 minors (as well as other atrocities that were committed by Hamas combatants and others that crossed the border on that October 7).
In answer to that attack and those deeds, Israel declared war on Hamas and brutally attacked Hamas combatants and targets, as well as tens of thousands of unarmed residents in the Gaza Strip, destroying most of the infrastructure and vast swaths of institutions, public structures and homes. The result of those attacks, as of this date (in spite of a declared ceasefire, the shelling and destruction in Gaza is still ongoing) is the intentional (both direct or collateral) deaths of approximately 58,000 non-combatants (including over 17,500 minors) and over 14,000 missing persons under the rubble that remains in all parts of the Gaza Strip.
I believe that the vast majority of people in the world (which includes both Gaza and Israel), if asked to relate to the morality of killing non-combatants (and especially minors) would state that such killing is immoral and unacceptable.
And yet, there are any number of those same people that would make an exception for the actions of the Hamas (“attacks upon a hostile population, including non-combatants, by ‘freedom fighters’ is a necessary tactic to achieve the ultimate goal of freedom”) or for the IDF (“there has never been any intention to kill civilians, but as the Hamas is hiding among the civilian population, the death of non-combatants of all ages is an unfortunate collateral result”). It is obvious that those that make an exception for the Hamas do NOT do so for the IDF, and vise-versa.
To the point … there is no true meaning or value in holding a conditional moral value, as anyone and everyone can and will be able to invent his own “moral” exception. The only true morality is universal morality – one rule that applies to all people equally, enforced in all cases with no exceptions.
[Specifically, concerning the conflict between Hamas and Israel – there must be a collective judgement in an independent court of law that will punish, on an equal basis, those who are guilty of commanding, or not preventing, the killing of non-combatants, as well as all those who are guilty of knowingly and intentionally doing so.]
Marc Marcus
Link to download PDF version of this post.
