Namgyal Karmartsang

Ways of Knowing
10/20/15
Who says I Have to be Moral?
In answer to the question why be moral, I will demonstrate that
there is no universal reason to be moral through the analysis of folkways
and mores by showing the complete lack of universal consistency regarding
morals, proving that there is no absolute reason to be moral. Additionally, I
will argue that morality is based purely on a personal level, meaning the
individual must decide upon their own reasons why they should be moral.
Despite there being morals which may be universal, there is no fundamental
reason to be moral because universal morality is merely a collective
agreement based on folkways and mores, which are completely subjective
to the viewer, and individual morals are fully dependent on that which the
individual determines to be moral, leading to the conclusion that the only
justification for being moral is due to personal choice.
In order to reach this conclusion, one must first figure out what
morality is, and where it comes from. Morality in its basic form is developed
from folkways and mores. Folkways, the determination of how to properly
act within a society, are the result of actions and their consequences, which
are then passed down to each following generation. Each profited by the
others experience; hence there was concurrence towards that which
proved to be most expedient. All at last adopted the same way for the same

purpose; hence the ways turned into customs and became mass
phenomena. (Sumner 20) At first folkways were merely methods in which
survival could be achieved as a society, but with time they became cultural
traditions, telling its members the way they should do things. They are
like the instinctive ways of animals, which are developed out of experience,
which reach a final form of maximum adaptation to an interest, which are
handed down by traditionyet change to meet new conditions, still within
the same limited methods, and without rational reflection or purpose.
(Sumner 21) The adaptive nature of folkways creates change where it sees
fit. When there is a change in the collective opinion of a group, the folkways
are passed down differently, modified to fit the beliefs of the current
generation. They are followed unconsciously and are well established before
being recognized as habitual behavior. Because each society or culture
develops folkways differently, each has their own concept of proper conduct.
Folkways are right because thats what tradition dictates. Mores are a step
above folkways, telling a society what actions are wrong. Mores build upon
the folkways of a society, refining them to the point of doctrine. From
mores, morals are developed, according to the individual societys beliefs
regarding right and wrong. Morals are the culmination of folkways and
mores that have been collectively decided upon on a larger scale. the
mores and the morality may move together, and there is no permanent or
universal standard by which right and truth in these matters can be
established and different folkways compared and criticized. (Sumner 28)

There is no absolute or universal definition of right and wrong, because

ones concept of right and wrong come from their folkways and mores. To
say one thing is right, is only to say it is right according to ones own
culture or society. When multiple cultures reach different conclusions
regarding morality, it is simply the result of the differences in development
of their folkways and mores. From this we can determine that morality is
not inherently defined, as it is developed through human thought and
action. If there is no absolute definition of morality, then the conflict
between moral and immoral is simply a difference in the collective opinion.
If there is no universal morality, then there can be no reason to practice
morality, aside from personal motivation.
Morality developed through folkways and mores attempts to be
universal, and fails, but there are still personal morals to consider when
figuring out why one should be moral. the best way of improving your
moral characteris to consider particular moral questions, so as to arrive at
the moral truth about them and establish important moral principles.
(Mcginn 94) Personal morality must be something an individual decides
upon; if they want to be moral, then they must figure out how, through their
own analysis, what is best for themselves as well as others. Moral actions
must be those which the individual can justify to themselves as being moral.
If they do not believe an action to be moral, then they must not do it,
because it is already immoral in their eyes. As social creatures, humans
tend to care what others think of them, which is almost always taken into

account when deciding personal morals. Ideally ones sense of good is a

balance between what is best on a personal level and what is best for the
collective. Figuring out if others will accept your actions as moral factors in
when deciding your own morality and whether or not you should take such
action. If the action could be seen as immoral, then they must realize why it
creates conflict and how it could be handled differently. Being good, at
least within your chosen sphere of operations, is something that everyone
should be able to manage. (Mcginn 99) Personal morality is something that
does not require extreme effort. It should be seamlessly integrated into
their lives, in a way which they are content with the good they do and the
areas in which they do less. How much one must do is up to the individual.
Where conflicts arise between desires there is no alternative to balanced
judgment... (Mcginn 99) In deciding how moral one should be, the
individual must create a balance between their desires and their perceived
moral obligations, whatever that may be. You may choose to dedicate your
life to being moral, but there is no reason to do so unless you want. What
this says about morality is that morality has no rules or justification,
because it is up to the individual to think for themselves and figure out what
the best course of action is.
These two pieces of evidence tells us that there is no reason to be
moral; no universal justification that tells you why you should or shouldnt
be moral. With no clear cut rules regarding why one should be moral, the
reasons must vary on the individual; it has to be based on personal choice.

If an individual decides to be moral to the best of their ability, then they are
moral. They are not required to have justification as to why, because they
simply are. When morality is attempted at a universal level it becomes
conflicted. Folkways and mores tell us that any action cant be considered
moral or immoral on a universal level, because they also tell us that they are
only considered thusly to the observing individual and not necessarily to the
individual committing the act. To call anothers action immoral is merely to
say it contradicts your personal morals. Each persons individual morals are
completely their own, and must be treated accordingly. To claim there is a
universal reason to be moral is to contradict this conclusion, as it would
have to be, by definition, universal, which according to folkways and mores,
is not possible.
Although the evidence above suggests there is no such thing as
universal morality, there is evidence of morals that are seemingly universal,
across many cultures and societies. The reason for this is we are humans
who care about the opinions of others. These faux-universal morals are
merely the result of societal pressure, which essentially come from mores.
Regarding the nearly universal belief against killing another human, looking
in the past we can see how this came from folkways and mores. In the
distant past, it was not considered bad or immoral, it simply was, and
was essential to survival. It only changed once humans began to function as
part of a large whole. Once the foundations of society were built, it was no
long advantageous to kill and take from another, because it would be more

beneficial to help others in order to help yourself. So these are like any
other belief, not coming from a definitive reason, but from the traditions
developed from human society.
If the only reason to be moral is by our choosing, this could be
interpreted as meaning you should not worry about if you think yours or
others actions are immoral, because morals are as unique as the
individuals themselves. However, this is not the case. We are a society,
building off each others beliefs and controlling and adapting them to fit
within ourselves. We must care about what we think of as moral or immoral
because it creates the foundation in which others will use to create their
own morality. If your individual morals are the result of your personal
conclusions about the world, the world must have its own conclusions in
order for you to reach yours. If we believe anothers actions to be immoral,
then we must tell them, in the hopes that they will consider their actions
from the perspective of another and potentially change the way they view
their own morality. This is, I believe, the fundamental purpose of morality;
to bring history and culture together with human experience and draw
conclusions on which to continually build society, a never ending adaptation
which must always push humanity to set a higher standard of
understanding.

Works Cited:
Mcginn, Collin. "Virtue." Moral Literacy or How To Do The Right Thing. Print.
Sumner, William. Folkways and Ethical Relativism. Print.