The term moral triggers different reactions amongst people and societies since everyone tends to hold onto a different perspective on the subject matter. Some of the concerns have been to underscore some of the underlying moral concepts, the relations among moral judgments and assumptions across cultures and their source(s). Morality can be understood as the human attempt to appreciate what is wrong and right about our thoughts and actions and further what is generally acceptable or refutable of an individual (Dahl & Killen, 2018). To a greater extent, human actions are never of free will but are determined by a number of factors. This makes morality a conglomerate noun that not only depends on religious belief but is influenced by other factors running as technology, culture, environment, family, nature, and education, among many others.
In analyzing the morality of human actions, the determinants can be categorized into complex enterprise as it is directly affected by a number of conditions, either within or without. In judging the good or evil side of any human action, three elements must be put into consideration from which every deed derives its morality and ethical justification. Such parameters include the actionâs objective, the circumstances engulfing the action, and the intentions of the performer.
The moral objective of a human act connotes the effect to which an action intends to produce. Notably, the objective primarily focuses on the result alone without taking into account the intention or circumstances surrounding the action (Dahl & Killen, 2018). It is usually regarded as the direct cause for the moral judgment of an action. From the viewpoint of the objective factor, an action is usually classified as morally good, bad, or indefinite. For instance, when one sets fire to a bush near a human settlement, the primary objective of the action is to help keep the surroundings clean and safe, but the end result might be environmentally unfriendly (Dahl & Killen, 2018). The scientific view of setting fire on the bush would consider the action morally bad as it works against the sustainability of Mother Nature. Burning the bush would increase the chances of soil erosion and flooding in an area. As the soil layers are directly exposed to raindrops and lack the usual ground cover that helps keep the soil particles together. Such actions are morally unacceptable and determined by the environment rather than the religious factor. It fails to comprise the future life and, in turn, works against the assumption that morality depends on religious beliefs.
The moral value of human action is also affected by circumstances as one factor. Here, the circumstance is attributed to the spatial relations in which something is situated outside of another but in close proximity (Zhang & Zhang, 2018). This insinuates the relation between human activities and circumstances, as human actions do not just exist as deeds performed in line with some end. They are connoted by details which can influence how the different actions are vied by people. Circumstance holds on to it the ability to make an action good or better, for instance, giving financial assistance to someone declared bankrupt by the bank.
Also, it can make an act good that is otherwise unresponsive. Case in point, keeping company lonely people to make them feel loved and cared for rather than rejected. Contrarily, circumstances are also able to make an action seem worse in its objective form. For example, a humanitarian assistant robbing victims of relief items in the case of a fire outbreak or a public servant using the public funds for his own gain rather than a public good. Similarly, all human actions are guided by distinct contexts in terms of time and place, thus factoring in the nature and environmental factors that determine human action’s morality.
The third element involved in the justification of the complex nature of human actions is the End or Intention of the Agent performing the act. According to Zhang & Zhang (2018), the intention or end of the human action is the purpose that triggers one to perform such action. Thus, hold to it that intention controls human action no matter how petty it might seem to a second party observing one’s behavior. It is to the effect that the perpetrator subjectively wills in his actions; however, it can happen that the agent’s intentions coincide with the specific objective of the human act. For instance, one is acting human to someone in need of blood donation in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).
However, there are instances when a person convicted of a bigger crime opts to take their lives for fear of mental suffering while serving long prison terms. Human action would only seem good only when the perpetrator means good by doing something that seems acceptable by everyone or a big population of the society (Zhang & Zhang, 2018). The perpetrator’s intention can also affect the good of human action just as the circumstance does. A viable intention would make an action more proficient in the nature of its object. For instance, giving a scholarship to a student from a low-income family would mean fighting out poverty in the future date. In the same line, the intention would worsen the object’s evil act, for example, when the government reprimands the opposition leader who serves as a government watchdog in a democratic country.
Contrary, the equivalent hypothesis holds that religion greatly motivates moral concern. Morality is believed to pertain to the behavior of human affairs and their relation with one another, whereas religion largely involves the relationship between humans and exceeding reality. Religion and morality are nearly inseparable; according to Skitka et al. (2018), the equivalent hypothesis equates morality to a golden threat to humanitarian assistance inspired by loving care believed to be motivated by religion. Notably, religion does shape people’s values, and values, in turn, boost people’s sense of meaning and purpose and indelibly structure people’s formulation of morality (Skitka et al., 2018). Different religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Judaism, also hold to it that faith and morality are inseparably related to one another (Skitka et al., 2018). The majority of religious believers hold to it that morality is inseparable from the belief in God, and lack of religious beliefs is directly associated with immorality to the extent that atheists are more likely to subscribe to the belief of the religious ones that religious non-believers are less moral.
Thus, morality is generally understood as an attempt to distinguish between wrong and right about human actions and thoughts. This goes far beyond the religious context to include other determinant factors such as family, technology, environment, and nature at large affect people’s perception of moral behaviors. In perceiving a situation, time and place need to be put into consideration. Therefore, the variation in culture and beliefs amongst people around the globe.
Reference
Afsar, B., AlâGhazali, B., &Umrani, W. (2020). Retracted: Corporate social responsibility, work meaningfulness, and employee engagement: The joint moderating effects of incremental moral belief and moral identity centrality. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(3), 1264-1278.
Dahl, A., & Killen, M. (2018). Moral reasoning: Theory and research in developmental science. In The Stevensâ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience (Vol. 4, pp. 323-353). Wiley New York.
Skitka, L. J., Hanson, B. E., Washburn, A. N., & Mueller, A. B. (2018). Moral and religious convictions: Are they the same or different things? PloS one, 13(6), e0199311.
Zhang, K., & Zhang, L. (2018). Extracting hierarchical spatial and temporal features for human action recognition. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 77(13), 16053-16068.