The
contemplation of morality for me starts by considering the presence or absence
of harm that may accrue to me or others by a given action I may take. The complication comes when one is required to
contemplate the degree and nature of harm an action may have relative the
degree of necessity for a given action. The goal of administering morality in
this fashion is to permit me to live my life in a relationship of beneficence
with humanity or in benign coexistence and to avoid inflicting harm or pain on others. Please note the absence of
outside reference for direction in relation to morality, this process at once
drives good and right social discourse and liberates.
Morality is
a means by which to ensure that members of a society can interface harmoniously,
it is a set of rules we voluntarily adhere to. While morality and law often
find themselves in league with each other they are separate and apart – or they
should be. Our legal system has emerged
from a long-standing Judeo-Christian moral complex and then to a lesser degree
perhaps Cannon Law. As this moral
complex has greatly influenced the development of our legal system, the legal
system has come into conflict with secular imperatives; the primary secular
imperative is the FREE and autonomous individual – in Canada this finds expression
in law in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the right to life, liberty and
security of person. The correct application
of this law is to permit free people to do as they please absent harm to others
– this is an interpretation that is absent moral consideration in Section 7’s
application save the presence or absence of harm.
A moral-complex that harms is in conflict with the purpose of having morality. By way
of example, there is a clear direction in the Bible to stone homosexuals to
death, in modern society regardless of your view toward homosexuality, the
prospect of stoning someone to death is preposterous. One offers this example as it is extreme and
clear. One can see the harm this example illustrates and in the same way, as an
8000-year-old moral-complex comes up against an increasingly informed society,
one sees adherence to old moral imperatives doing harm. Worse, however, we see harm accruing to people
in direct contradiction of generally accepted morays, sexual abuse by people in a position of authority for example, or matters of consent as it relates to one’s
inherent right to the domain over one’s own mind and body.
The
morality I suggest - based on the contemplation of the presence or absence of
harm - is also supported by honour and integrity. That is to say, we are allowed
to define our association with others as we please – so long as our association
is based on consent – honour provides the imperative to adhere to our agreed
association and integrity ensures we develop the agreement in good faith. This
approach to moral concern permits another’s truth to be as valid as your own
and when there is a conflict between one or more individuals’ or groups’ approach to life,
they can live in benign coexistence, with harm being the only justification for
state intervention.
