WHERE'S THE HARM?

There is a Grand Canyon-like crevice in the field of morality.

On the one side are those I call social moralists...they who believe that there is no one objectively provable correct code of morality for humans. They believe that each society establishes its own code.

On the other side are those I call natural moralists...they who believe that there is an objectively provable correct code of morality based on the nature of the human species. Just like the proper amount of water and sunlight any species of plant needs to survive and to flourish is determined by its nature, so, too, they say, the proper way for humans to act to survive and flourish (that is, be happy) is determined by their nature.

For example: unlike a stone, man is confronted with a life and death alternative. To remain alive, man needs certain things: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Therefore, the proper code of morality (or code of pro-life conduct) includes the virtue of Productivity.

Another example: man lives in reality, he must survive, if at all, in reality. Unlike animals, he is not programmed by instincts to act a certain pro-life way. He must make countless decisions each day of his life. Should he eat poison for breakfast or bran flakes? Should he jump out the window of his tenth floor apartment, to get down, or should he take the stairs? Etc., etc., etc. His nature gives him an effective way of making these decisions: it provides him with (1) five senses to gain information about reality, (2) a mind that can process and objectively evaluate that information logically, and (3) the capacity to choose a course of action. In combination, those three natural traits of the human species give rise to the virtue of Rationality.

Natural moralists reason that all other virtues (including honesty, integrity, justice, independence and pride) can be proven by reference to man's nature.

Natural moralists believe that man acting immorally, even in the solitude of a locked room, generates punishment for those actions since they are, at root, opposed to his nature. He cannot escape them. His actions are anti a pro life code of morality and he suffers their natural consequences (loss of self esteem, loss of confidence, self denigration, despair, loss of ability to distinguish reality from unreality,etc.).

Overwhelmingly, though, most people are social moralists and they believe that there is no punishment to be had for acting immorally unless society knows about it. Morality is considered to be in the same category as socially established crimes: unless you're caught, no punishment. Which is why it is common to hear these defenses of immorality:

"So I lied...nobody will ever know...what's the difference?"
"I got away with it, didn't I?"
"It's a dog-eat-dog world...anything goes."

And even when caught, social moralists defend their transgressions with:

"It was only a white lie."
"Come on, everybody does it."
"Who are you to say what's immoral?"

Point: Unless and until natural moralism is more generally accepted, and it becomes more widely understood that there are inate inescapable penalties to be paid for your acting against your nature, there will be no reduction in, no way to counter, the immorality plaguing our world. No way. And it all begins with educating our youngsters.

Take it from a natural moralist: even if no one is watching, eat the bran flakes and take the stairs.