There are two ways to describe morals in this dialectic: the details of the ethic or the combination of all varied moral spheres. Religious aspects do not work since it supposes that the social sphere is somehow distinct from religious ethics. Yet the social structure is not uniform on the matter. There is no consistent ethical frame. The community’s ethical model follows whichever political leanings one adheres to. Humanism is not the barometer of ethical security. Abortion, meat, drugs. There are differences in various areas depending on one’s cultural and political references. If anything the only consistency is the morals. Lying generosity and patience are welcomed terms. There is a personal behaviour that is respected by virtue of one’s upstanding ship beyond their ethical makeup.
Ethics vary by organisation. Mafias have their mode of ethical conduct but such residual depictions are not necessarily moral in hindsight. The varied ethical setups are garnered for social interaction. Ethics is a model of normative interaction. The dos and donts about encountering others. A list to annotate. Yet situations arise and quick decisions are needed to be made. The moral effort is the decision in the field. There is a tribunal but what is the correct model. The military has an ethical code one that is to be followed in war time but the given situation may inquire of the individual to act beyond the ethical code. Whether or not he is tried does not detract from the subjective deduction. Morality is the personal distinction in the heat of the moment. Having a conceptual background in the necessary framework is only the ideal but not the real of the moment.
Subscribing to a format that relies on the typical case. For the normative circumstances, the ethical layout works but not for the situational drama that emerges. This is the oral details to written textuality. Precepts can contain the foundational layer but fail to optimise every single situation. It just can’t measure to the grind. The system is generated to interfere with the most general of cases but the unsolicited and unidentified carry questionable execution. It is therefore on the subject's interpretation how to proceed. The subject in his own enlightenment must signal the response he believes to be the correct one. There is no charter to cite or mentor to inquire, simply to figure which direction to take. A confidence in one’s own stature to master the scenario. Activity marks initiative and honesty. A break from the tantalising demand.
It can be argued that the individual’s decision is corrupted by his experiences. Whereby society teaches equality of all men but he has a bias against a certain ethnicity. Yet to an extent the ethnic bias is rooted in his environmental ethical charter. The idea of ethics as solely a state funded phenomenon demurs the communal entrapment of diverse moral failings. Beyond the political differences are value beliefs. The question of abortion is bodily autonomy versus murder. Depending on which community will heavily guide that ethical mind. One could live in a liberal city and be pro-life and vice versa. The moralist who rejects his community’s ethical charter is an outcast on the local level but not nationally. No longer is ethics tied up with morals (except in certain religious states). The melting pot of pluralistic dimensions synthesises various ethical motions. A clash of an ethic differences breaches the political into the social placement of interconnected citizens.
Local ethics finds its stability in corporate businesses. Just like the military, the office build up has an ethical system in place. Each corporation acts differently even if there are certain stylistic motifs. Dress, demeanour and decorum do have their place. While it would be unethical to show up in shorts and a t-shirt to work it is not immoral. Unethical is dually related to the system it is betraying. In certain households it is unethical to walk around in shoes or to watch television during the week. It sounds off but definitionally this is logical. None of it is immoral since it fails to violate any subjective imprisonment or nefarious behaviour. Morals is a judgement against the grain. Acting unethically differs in the immoral attitude as a wrongful decision with little freedom. It is a bad decision made in the moment. It is not intentioned against an institution but a spontaneous action that is derided for its misuse. Actions have consequences and such immorality emerges from bad actions.
Morals do tend to have a universal bind. While situations differ there is a pertinent behaviour expected. Respect and honesty are but a few of the regular upstanding feelings. The way one carries himself is a by-product of his environment. Morals while individualistic are derived from the ethical charter. No matter how foreign from the framework or spontaneous, his actions will merit his upbringing. Still, the subjective experience lends credence to autonomous decision making. There is a sliver of choice to alter fate. In the same vein, the moralistic execution in the heat of the moment while ethically induced does reciprocate in its situational impact. The situation itself may have endured a less obvious response. An embedded ethic evaluates in the typical but the atypical is an estimate. There is an expectation but one that cannot be achieved nor inquired until after the deed is done. Once the punch has been thrown retroactively can the moral debate begin. Context to the situational ambivalence charges morals on its grounds.
A melting pot society symbiotically organises diverse ethics into a single being. Morals are typified by secular, religious, political and genetic dispositions. The individual is a hot potato of varied agendas. Morals act as an indicator of a savoury mixture. While a religious person may follow his religious ethic in a secular society, thereby dubbing it a moral stance is quite circumstantial. His religious ethic is only technically ethical in a state-sponsored spiritual synthesis. Yet even in a theocratic country, it must also be that of his religion. Also on what level does society connote the difference? Is it considered morals if the community is sheltered or is it the nationality that makes the decision? The ethic is relative to the encountering community. Given the pluralistic cable no matter which affiliation, it would be considered morals. The subject is constantly surrounded by dissenters. Placed in a foreign ethical world. Given his varying allegiances there is no single ethic to ascribe to.
Ethics is the law of acceptable behaviour. The law is the embedded accord that is dually followed. He who accepts the ethic lives by it. There is no single train and thus the moralist is the result of absorbed material. Spontaneously incorporating his ethical indulgence. Reaching a complex scheme of proper expression. Out in the world he goes with his gut backed by consistent advertising. His actions are mixed with emotion and experience. Lectured on the multiple airways of acting. His views are of careful consideration by the subconscious. Estimating an instinctive reaction in the public eye. Ethics are bland and strict in their formulation. The elasticity is programmed into the situational variety. The hermeneutical deduction succinctly aligns the statement with the facts of the case. Confronted with the nuanced reality requires quick witted action. Using routine to establish consecutive trial and error. Habituated to designate the correct motive in the public sphere.
One’s actions may be criticised. Dogmas are strong and the ethic comes to life in the fundamentalist scheme. Drawing a direct line between the ethical charter and moral activity. A straight line that does not budge. A semantic reading of a legal text with moot flexibility. The singular possibility is enhanced by the majority voice. Polarised icecaps fail to delineate between the two. Any diversion is harmful to their cause. Nuance is the greatest enemy. Nuance is an illusion perpetrated for false liberty. It is arbitrarily forcing a people-pleasing hazard. Veiling one’s truth with a foot in each camp. The monistic overtones connect the two into a cohesive framework. The words are different for a reason beyond literary spunk. Offering divergent behavioural metrics. Criticised for not falling in line is a case of cool-aided zombie land. The distinctiveness in the wild speaks to an existential uniqueness in the face of uniform solidarity. The valley in between the two waring kingdoms.
Morals are so tied to the ethical lecturing force-fed from childhood. Lessons and principles tattooed in the mind’s eye. The negative ethic of bigotry and stereotypical jargon flares into the immoral procedural execution. Anger flares and frustration brews in its targeted malice. Even the kindest ethic can falter in the wild jungle. The hope is that the ethic affects positively. So much occurs in the wild that action is not always intentionally demoralising. Certain bigotry is learned combined with the positive ethic concerns only one family with alien outsiders. Bigotry may also emerge on the hunt. Losing a job or failing a quota seeks rationale that startles the benefit self-loathing model. Losing oneself in the darkness of the jungle fires warning shots at others. Preaching about other’s failures refusing to accept accountability for personal sins. The principled remain calm in deplorable situations, staying true to their convictions. Yet the obstacles do not diminish their out hand in their faults.
The ethic is the starting point to paint a moral picture for oneself. The individual crafts their behavioural patterns to mesh with others. Even the loner needs some company. Simple genuine respect to others is a novel beginning. The jungle is dark and scary. Unknowns canvass the area in pitch blackness. Figures are made out but there is little encroachment. The masks come off when genuine risk is involved. To be willing to unveil one’s self to the other. Speaking freely and honestly. The moral procedure is about doing right by oneself. Not feeling the need to exchange information with every stranger wandering the jungle. Taking initiative when one feels like it. To be poignant about one’s opinions and not back down from a mob. Live to one’s integrity and defy all those who wish to harm and seduce. Control is a favourite of the ethical groups. Listen carefully and read literally. Shut out that nonsense. The ethic is a foundational guide to live life peacefully and positively.
Stubborn robots possess brutal linearity. Seeking the ethical makeup as the submission to the angelic overlords. There is no oscillation nor convergence. The dialectic is skewed to ferment a pressured appointment. The individual is jolly in the wild whereupon a hoard of brainless geese attack ferociously. Take his voice and carve up his pride. Lest a man have an opinion and hold it to himself. He need not even proclaim it but his actions speak louder than words. He is caught trespassing and sentenced for the firing squad unless he relents. Convert to the enemy’s side or else. Relinquish all evil thoughts. Yet this mild mannered chap is trying to live by his style away from conflict but conflict has found him. They have stormed the chapel where he was privately praying. Accused of praying incorrectly muttering jargon in perverse language without acknowledging the true deity. His private quarters have been invaded firebombed by defective imbeciles on a mindless crusade.
Defecting from the ethic is heretical. The apparent uniform ethic upheld by the fewest of margins command the most vocality. Shouting and whining about their validity hinders the majority’s extensive complexity. All along the spectrum with contradicting views based entirely on moral conscious. Little to do with any preacher or complainer seeking military conquest. Rebelling against the standardisation eviscerates dogmatic coercion. Yet others are swept in by their rallying call. Only if united can the boogy monster be defeated. A cry into the fantasy of delusion but phobic obscurity haunts the nuanced. Falling in line to repel the dangerous foe. Propagandised to ensure the obvious predatory agent is victimised. The once nuanced now standardised wilfully forget their old habits and criminalise the remaining nuance. Taunting them into submission. So enmeshed in triumph their morals are secluded into sophist triviality.
Funnelling the foundational ethic into a fluid moralistic perspective enables a calming spirit. The ideals range in their associated personification. Parental guidance and environmental exposure imprints its impact on the growing perspective on others. Values introduced are the abstract yet iconographical in their seeming concretised implementation. It is a sign of particularist cultural identity. In relating to the outside, the abundance of complexity engenders integral measures to partake in the encounter with otherness. The semiotic alignment seeps beneath to the imagistic events over the socratic ideas. Slogans of modelled behaviour are a precursor to otherness attachment. An inevitable experience. Alone in the wilderness, recalling the ethical structure symbolises a starting point to relate to others. Indebted to youthful education to properly engage others. Ethic is imperfect in its realisation to societal engagement. A debt that is evolved and mastered in the individual’s relation to the societal picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment