Introduction

Imagine the following scenario: You see a runaway trolley moving toward five tied-up (or otherwise incapacitated) people lying on the tracks. You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track, and the five people on the main track will be saved. However, there is a single person lying on the side track. You have two options: Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track, or pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is more morally just? For some, the answer may seem obvious; for others, it’s impossible to answer. This scenario, known as the “Trolley Problem”, is one of the most famous moral dilemmas in the world. Moral dilemmas pose a situation in which you must pick one of two options, neither of which are completely morally satisfying. In this scenario, one must decide which is more important: the good of the group or the good of the few. This dilemma can be seen not only in extreme theoretical circumstances like the one presented previously, but in as mundane of circumstances as daily life. In life in the West, individuality and the discovery of truth are emphasized so much so that oftentimes people can tend to focus on the self more than the group. The opposite can be seen in many Asian populations-- a filial group mindset is encouraged from birth and thus grow into a desire to uphold the group over oneself. This example is just one of many viewpoints that the East and West tend to disagree upon, especially when one looks at moral philosophy from these two branches of the world. The antithetical points of view that seem apparent between Eastern and Western philosophy are truly complementary in that they provide a well-rounded, all encompassing moral construction for society to build upon.

Research Questions

For the scope of this study, it is important to clearly identify what lens in which I will approach the broad topic of morality. In this paper, morality will be defined through a combination of Sophist, Relativist and Humanist viewpoints. This combination, in essence, can be summarized as the understanding that every individual has a unique “moral fingerprint” that is developed from the moment of birth to the moment of death. These moral codes are not only defined by the individual, but experience heavy influence from social and societal conventions, along with influence from higher laws that are out of our grasp of control and understanding. These higher laws can best be understood as natural law, defined by Antiphon as “the law of self-preservation. Like all laws, it carries a punishment for those who violate it: death. Unlike conventional law, this punishment necessarily follows the violation of the law. That is what makes it a natural law rather than a matter of convention. All creatures... follow this law by seeking what is "advantageous" to themselves" (Melchert, 48). Through this definition we can see that, while humanity still has the capacity to build a conventional justice system, there is still an ever-present need for survival that ultimately governs our laws, moral code and societal framework. Natural law, then, should be considered the “all-powerful” judicial system, and shall be used in this study as the foundational building-blocks of the human moral compass. With this understanding of natural law, it is important to note that in a moral dilemma, the preservation of oneself (natural law) takes precedence over the preservation of human convention (conventional law). It is also common in life-or-death scenarios, such as the one presented in the introduction, for humans’ instinct to bond with one another also takes higher priority, often leading people to choose for the “good of the many” over the “good of the few”. This Relativist idea of morality can prove to be difficult, however, when one must decide what is and isn’t morally just. In my research, it has remained evident that every person has their own frame of morality, however when one person’s moral compass disenfranchises another, then that person’s moral philosophy is inherently flawed. I also assert that, while it is easy for moral foundations to be contradictory, so long as that no person is devaluing another person’s morality without a just, reasonable cause, then no two people’s moral foundations are truly contradictory. With this concept already concrete in my own personal beliefs, I further strive to study elements of Eastern Philosophy (e.g. the concept of Dao) to further solidify and widen this definition of morality.

Literature Review

The West’s Understanding of Morality

First, it is imperative to define the schools of moral philosophy that I will be focusing on in this study. Relativist and Sophist lenses are the primary concepts that will be used. Moral Relativism, defined by Simon Blackburn as the “position that… people react differently, morally, to different things… So you have different views, different positions and the potential for conflict” (Blackburn, 10-11). That is to say that there is no such thing as one moral truth, rather these truths change dependent on the person and, potentially, the circumstance. This concept, when paired with certain Sophist ideas, creates a different, albeit vague, definition of morality. Sophist Antiphon talks about the difference between natural and conventional law (concepts explained in the research questions of this paper), and how "the law of self-preservation takes precedence over the conventional laws because it is ‘necessary’ and ‘natural’"(Melchert, 48). However, it is important to note that, while Antiphon’s point of view heavily lends itself to the message of this paper, the other main point in a Sophist view of morality is that “just as there is no sense in asking whether the wind is either cold or warm…, so is there no sense in asking whether a given law is really just. If it seems just to the people,... say, then it is just"(Melchert, 47). This is to say that laws of convention are oft not to be overly questioned if it is accepted by the majority of the populus. Say, for example, murder; the majority of the people agree that it is wrong, and therefore it is illegal, and has remained so with little contest. Though this viewpoint has been scrutinized, it can still be used to lend credence to the combination of Sophist and Relativist stances in regards to morality. As explained in the research questions, this combination of viewpoints, in essence, describes a moral system in which all people have the right to a “moral fingerprint” personal to the individual. These moral fingerprints are all considered to be true, so long as they do not disenfranchise another person’s morality. The only way for a person to be able to invalidate another’s moral fingerprint is if they have a just, reasonable cause to do so (e.g. one person’s moral code permits for something that, according to the mass population, is wrong). With this said, I have now defined the basic construct for the moral system I intend to show in this study, and will now move forward explaining the elements of Eastern philosophy that will be implemented to fill any gaps.

The East’s Understanding of Morality

The main concept discovered throughout my research was the concept of Dao and the difference between Eastern and Western scopes of morality. For the purposes of this study, we can understand ‘Dao’ as the ‘spiritual foundation of morality”(Yu and Xu, 365). That is to say that Dao is the innermost building block in which we build upon our own personal moral standing. This grows out into a moralist culture that understands the existing ties between people and their intentions, as well as understanding when it is time to cut something unjust from yourself. This contrasts well against the West’s emphasis on the discovery of truth and the external world-- a school of thought starkly different in comparison to the introspective East. These differences, however, are complementary in the same way that these “two modes of thinking [find their] embodiment in the difference between their outward and inward, and dynamic and static, orientations"(Yu and Xu, 368). That is to say that, while these two schools of thought act as the antithesis of one another, they are still constructed in such a way in which they are complementary to each other.

Conclusion and Proposal for Future Study

In this study, I was able to grow and widen my own “moral fingerprint” while also making headway into a larger philosophical task I will be attacking in the future. It was found that, with the combination of Sophist and Relativist ideals, that the concept of the “moral fingerprint” was able to be created. Moral fingerprints are personal to the individual, and can only be scrutinized if disenfranchising another or with another reasonable cause. From this West-centric understanding of morality, I have now been able to develop my moral theory with the newfound knowledge of Eastern moralism. By combining these two I can expand upon my moral fingerprint as follows: we, as humans, follow two forms of law-- natural and conventional. Natural law can be understood as the “law of the land” so to speak; a justice system swift with the punishment of death for all who break its rules. Conventional law is that which is defined by man, and can be altered in any way at will. Conventional law takes less precedence than natural law, and it is considered morally right to break conventional law in order to keep in regulation with natural law. What is then added to this point is the introspection of self that must be undertaken throughout one’s journey through life. Satiating the need of Dao, our inner foundation of our moral compass, works hand in hand with understanding and respecting the omnipresent natural law we are ultimately governed by. Starting with this foundation of respect for the protection of our own selves allows for us to then focus on others and to see how we truly are interconnected. With these bases set as a framework, the rest of an individual’s moral compass comes out of experience, whether that be physical, emotional or spiritual. The things we, as humans, are exposed to throughout our life will ultimately guide us to what we believe is right and wrong. And it is this extremely personal fact that makes moral truth truly impossible to define-- for we are such impressionable creatures each “moral fingerprint” will always be so wonderfully unique, we cannot possibly put a label on true “morality”-- instead we can only define frameworks, as I have done here. For future study, I intend to expand upon what has been covered in this paper, however take it into a further philosophical theory on what is a truly “moral” society, religion, justice system etc.

Works Cited

Edmonds, David, and Nigel Warburton. Philosophy Bites. Oxford University Press, 2012.

Melchert, Norman. The Great Conversation. 4th ed., vol. 1 2, Oxford University Press, 2004.

Weidong, Yu, et al. “Morality and Nature: The Essential Difference between the Dao of Chinese

Philosophy and Metaphysics in Western Philosophy.” Frontiers of Philosophy in China, vol. 4, no. 3, 2009, pp. 360–369. JSTOR.

LI, Youguang, and Deyuan HUANG. “The True or the Artificial: Theories on Human Nature

before Mencius and Xunzi—Based on "Sheng Is from Ming, and Ming Is from Tian".”

Frontiers of Philosophy in China, vol. 5, no. 1, 2010, pp. 31–50. JSTOR.