The Oracle Chapter 4 (Anthropos)
Lorient Montaner
Morality
(Ethikoitita)
1. The Oracle defines morality as the clear distinction of intentions, decisions, and actions between those considered just and those unjust, in accordance with one’s beliefs and conduct.
2. Men and women of paragon aretaic value and righteousness are not the sole proprietors of morality. Morality does not belong exclusively to those who judge and act according to a divine or human agent, but to those who judge and act justly.
3. “Excellence, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean, relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it,” declared Aristotle. We should not pursue excellence as perfection, but rather as the embodiment of reason.
4. Socrates said, “A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true.” Ergo, we must construe from his words that morality is unfounded if it lacks the conviction of reason and the application of ethics to support its essential principles.
5. Plato said, “Pursuing one's actual self-interest never conflicts with the demands of morality.” For him, it is more rational to pursue one’s real purpose than mere appearance or self-interest. Rationality and morality, thus, do not conflict; it is rational to be moral. From that asseveration we learn that to abandon reason is to forsake true morality.
6. Aristotle described moral virtue as a disposition to behave rightly, and as a mean between extremes of deficiency and excess, both of which are vices. We learn moral virtue primarily through habit and practice rather than mere instruction. This teaches us that our moral habits are shaped by our behaviour and actions.
7. The issue of morality is a contentious matter between religion and philosophy. Morality necessitates the presence of a moral agent, which is an individual with conscious awareness of their actions. To claim that only a god can serve as the ultimate authority in morality is to nullify humanity’s own capacity for moral judgement.
8. To propose that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion and instead, through reason is more plausible than suggesting moral behaviour depends solely on a creator. Without consciousness, morality and its mores are rendered meaningless.
9. Why do some define morality strictly in religious terms, and presume that non-religious individuals lack morality? Is committing an injustice worse than suffering one to a rational atheist, agnostic, or theist?
10. Our inductive thoughts and decisions are shaped by the mental frameworks we are inculcated with norms rooted in our culture and education.
11. When we step beyond those frameworks and engage in meticulous observation and contemplation of the world, our morality begins to form around a belief system rooted in concepts, theories, and facts guided by reason, not blind faith.
12. A person must strive intuitively to understand self-knowledge, self-awareness, and self-being. The nature of our true self is linked to thought, volition, well-being (eudaimonia), and the physical dimension of the body.
13. Reducing suffering and enhancing well-being are moral acts, provided the individual understands the distinction between both. This knowledge does not necessitate religion.
14. Morality only requires cognition and consciousness. There are no absolute moral truths, as morality is subjective. The universe is indifferent to our suffering, and without our awareness, there is no moral agent to define morality.
15. We are not born with perfect moral purity. People may believe we are born innocent, but we are not, since true moral discernment must be developed, not presumed from birth.
16. It is more pertinent to discuss the tension between moral objectivity and subjectivity. In philosophy, moral objectivity refers to a fixed point of reference, while moral absolutism asserts that all actions are inherently right or wrong.
17. It would be unwise not to address the misconception of morality and the distinction between virtue and vice within that assertion. We must comprehend the value of virtue perceived in various ways depending on one’s beliefs.
18. Virtue is the embodiment of moral excellence, and vice the product of moral fault. Both derive from our actions. Morality acts as a guiding principle that may be seen as either objective or subjective, within the intricate dichotomy of human nature and rational thought.
19. If morality were purely religious, then I would need to clarify whether our actions stem from innate depravity or divinely assigned morality classified as good or evil, without reason or awareness. Without reason, we collapse into continual oblivion.
20. To accept that view, I must distinguish between our agathokakological traits, our conduct, disposition, and the effects of moral anomie. To reject this would be to deny the nature of the proposition itself.
21. The five core beliefs in philosophy are happiness, reason, nature, progress, and liberty. Without them, our ability to think, perceive, understand, and live meaningfully would be diminished.
22. Supreme intelligence is not a prerequisite for understanding morality. Its foundation lies in the indisputable logic of rational consequence.
23. I would argue that absolute morality is not congruent with philosophy’s general tenets, because it is not dogma but conscience that governs ethical behaviour, not personal convictions, nor religions, nor anything akin.
24. As one who follows a philosophy built upon human reason, I see gods only as conceptual constructs, not physical realities. To claim gods are transparent in nature is to argue they are omnipresent and evident beyond the realm of faith.
25. Ultimately, I must conclude with my scepticism: certainty about anything, especially the existence of gods, is indubitably impossible, because no one can know such a truth with apodictic certainty.
26. Thus, I am left with either the concept of logical positivism—that only statements verifiable through direct observation or logic are meaningful or with philosophemes of metaphysical significance.
27. To be intuitively moral is to be conscious of the relativity inferred beyond transcendental certainty. Morality does not require a god, but an active, reasoning consciousness. We need not divine grace when we already possess the wisdom of philosophy.
28. Am I less moral because I do not worship a god, or is that god more immoral for rejecting me? What value lies in a creed that denies the knowledge we possess, if such a creed is not universally applicable?
29. Philosophy’s moral compass lies in logical consistency and ethical precedence, not in the dichotomy of sin and righteousness. Abstaining from sin does not make us morally infallible. Moral justice arises through self-discipline, action, and virtue.
30. The notion that we are judged as sinners or saints is but an effort to impose guilt as a means to suppress the will. Pudicity, in the Oracle’s philosophy, does not equate to moral value. The Oracle teaches that bodily purity is found in health and well-being, not in the rejection of sensuality or a belief in inherited sin.
31. In philosophy, we are taught that good and bad are natural characteristics of our dispositions. Subsequently, good or bad is not defined by our shame and guilt, but by our deeds, which represent our inner self knowingly.
32. It is time to realise the unique difference and function of moral judgement and moral decadence. Moral judgement is attributed to a decision or action, while moral decadence is accredited to a lack of conscious thought or indifference.
33. Nothing of morality is a product of religious sin or ignorance. Instead, it is an ethical value espoused through rational sense. Therefore, its function is not to deter us by condemnation, but to guide us through the continuity of a logical structure of ethics.
34. The Oracle embodies the elements of morality and inculcates them precisely, with the intention of edifying the mind to reach a certain enlightenment that brings us knowledge and wisdom.
35. What we search for in morality is the quest for the essence of good. This good defines our character or traits. With it, we are capable of ascribing to the general practice of morality.
36. Whether our answers to questions are peirastic or simply pysmatic, they assist us in the process of determining what we value and what we deem moral from immoral through our judgement.
37. To be moralistic or not in the religious sense is not a concept to be adhered to in philosophy. No individual should consider others immoral based on the false analogy of their beliefs. We could interpret morality based on our conviction or eusebiac nature.
38. What makes us moral or immoral is what we conceive as just and not perceive as unjust. When we act with moral judgement, we exemplify our character, but this alone does not make us morally superior.
39. Every man or woman who professes a singular belief, whether it be religious or philosophical, must find meaning in that belief, or else it is rendered meaningless and unfulfillable.
40. What one believes in demonstrates the true conviction espoused, but it does not signify that this belief is just in its nature. For a belief to be just, it must be just to all.
41. If we contemplate the idea of morality in a general sense, then what could be argued or posited is a foundation for belief. What we desire to know is not always what we need to do. Every action committed with thought allows us to then ponder the right from the wrong of that action. This is when morality is impartial rather than partial.
42. Without knowledge, there is no wisdom; and without morality, there is no immorality. With morality and immorality, one serves the purpose of a just cause, while the other denies that cause.
43. We often attempt to play the supreme being of a god with our moral sense of judgement, and what we commonly find is that no man or woman is wise enough to learn from the distinction between moral and immoral without bias.
44. We tend to sit on our palatial throne of judgement and deem what is immoral and moral, without realising that we ourselves are casting aspersions upon ourselves, through the display of our lack of reasoning.
45. This is further accentuated in the way we speak and conduct ourselves, with self-righteousness and pretension. Vanity will only disrobe and corrupt one's intentions and true identity. It is facile to be influenced by things that are adscititious rather than adventitious.
46. Every whole-minded person must be accountable for his or her actions in life. Everyone is capable of the common traits of good and bad. It is we, the people, who define their relevant signification.
47. The belief that our gender, race, nationality, religion, or status makes us morally superior to others is to confirm a complexity of inferiority from the outset.
48. Within the commonality of beliefs, there are countless things that people believe with absolute morality and conviction. However, the world does not revolve around the self-existence of any belief. It merely exists and nothing more. The world is the reflection of self-evidence discovered by self-awareness.
49. Decency is relative to modesty, and modesty is relative to conduct. Without either decency or modesty, our conduct is rendered ineffective and indifferent. Thus, morality determines our modesty and conduct.
50. The issue of morality is not a concept of religion. In essence, it is founded originally on the philosophical morality of ethics. Ethics is didactic and exponible in its praxis and teachings. Simply, it does not require the inclusion of religion, but rather the synteresis of sophrosyne.
51. The best reward one could receive is the acknowledgement of the humanity within someone's virtue. It is important that we learn to distinguish healthy ambition from avid ambition.
52. Absolute morality is incomparable to the beliefs of philosophy, because what guides our behaviour is the fundamental essence of our conscience, not our personal convictions or religions. A belief is not the same as faith: faith is mere inspired devotion, while belief is a conscious thought embedded in our mind.
53. Propriety is a natural trait that could be considered a form of consuetude, because our actions are dependent on our behaviour and habits. Character is not based solely on integrity, but also on the evident accountability of judgement and action. "Men are disturbed not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things," declared Epictetus.
54. The word reputation is such a whimsical notion to attribute to someone. To describe a person's identity, it is better defined as human character. It is human character that helps build our morality.
55. I cannot acknowledge any ethical or moral principle for capitalism. Is there any rational person who could justify quantified profit or greed in an ethical or moral sense? A person cannot rationalise that argument with a rebuttal, because the rebuttal would be irrational from the premise.
56. I have never understood the purpose of immoral condemnation, because the majority who accuse are unjust zealots more immoral than the accused. I am convinced there is more about us that unites us than divides us in our empathy and beliefs.
57. Do not presume to know everything, when it is better to assume that knowledge is only that which is presently known. Thus, it is knowledge that assists one in the understanding of just morality.
58. The common characteristics I attribute to philosophy are intertwined with the discernible traits reflected in quotidian human behaviour, associated with ethics and utilitarianism.
59. Our deeds are determined by the awareness of our actions, predisposed to the preconception of our erroneous conduct that causes our wrongdoings and indiscretions in the first place. The religious concept of sin is dismissed in the Oracle. It is a non sequitur, since philosophy addresses the moral issue of self-control, not sinful discretions.
60. The moral compass in philosophy is predetermined in the consistency of logic and ethics, which take precedence over the instructed belief of sin and righteousness that predominate in religion.
61. No concept or belief can be fully understood as moral or immoral, even with abderitism, if there is not a logical premise to base a foundation of thought upon that provides rationality to complex questions about human mores and is didactic. Conscience is knowing right from wrong, but consciousness is being aware of the distinction.
62. Conscience is a powerful mechanism that enhances our ethos tremendously. It also makes us mindful of the situations and ordeals we must confront, despite their unpredictability.
63. It recompenses the incidence of the errors and foibles we admit as our defects. It projects the lucid understanding of what is right from wrong, what is logical or illogical in our actions and thoughts, whether by premeditation or afterthought.
64. The purpose of morality is to serve our better judgement and telic conceptions wisely, not the blatant misconceptions of what we ascribe to moral or immoral arguments, whether deduced or adduced.
65. If we cannot intrinsically deem a thing or a person immoral or moral, then it is best to refrain from judgement and seek wisdom by ascertaining more knowledge that can be discovered.
66. What makes us moral agents is our capacity to comprehend the distinction between what is just and unjust, humane and inhumane. This is personified by the element of prohairesis.
67. We cannot function as moral agents if we are deprived of any semblance of rational thinking. This burden becomes a problem to nomological concepts of morality that lead to a clear misunderstanding.
68. There is such a thing as immorality, but it is not a question of condemning false morality, rather the absence of reason and logic. Without reason and logic, the quiddity of morality is devoid of any true substance and affirmation of the truth.
69. We could attempt to expound with synomilies or homilies what morality represents, and align them with nomothetic verities, expecting them to be congruent and compatible, but morality is not meant to be fidimplicitary.
70. The Oracle provides us with a philosophy that embraces the concept of morality, with logos and ethos. It cannot be less or more than that which guides us in our path toward moral clarity and prudence.
71. When we seek morality outside of the philosophic realm, we tend to believe we are sophronised by a higher authority that is a god. Yet optimality is neither effectuated, nor is the enlightenment of the seity possessed.
72. It only deviates our chosen path in life. When, as humans, we depend less on deities for guidance in morality and more on our own will and capacity, we then find ourselves capable of reaching a just morality.
73. This is where we discover such things within our endoxas and physis as the synesis, the synderesis, and the syneidesis. One deals with the faculty of good judgement, another with moral action, and the last with the capacity for moral judgement. These enhance our wise learning.
74. There are adiaphorons, where an individual attempts to be neutral, but neutrality in morality is only a compromise, not a definite answer. Thus, it is better not to judge something of which one is not convinced of its totality and implication.
75. To be moral is not the same as to be righteous, just as to be immoral is not the same as to be depraved. In the teachings of the Oracle, the difference is understood in the relevance and meaning of what it is to be moral or immoral. There is a difference between being altitudinarian and latitudinarian. We must apply equilibrium, not casuistry.
76. The Oracle ascribes to the thought that there is a purity within our consciousness, which guides or misleads us. This is how we determine what or who is moral from immoral. We choose to be moral or immoral, willingly or unwillingly, through our actions and judgements.
77. The inner self that defines our character or persona is only the mechanism to our cognisance. When we apply cognition and sentience to things that are existential in our world, then we ascertain the realisation of those actions and judgements.
78. Everything we deem moral has an opposite that contradicts that morality. Ergo, there is a certain truth in that statement. The conundrum is not what is determined to be moral, but why it is determined to be immoral? On what foundation is this immorality based, if it does not pertain to the purity of the truth?
79. If we deem that the self or soul is impure with immorality, then we must also deem that the body is immoral. If both are impure in thought and action, then we must accept and concede that our rationality is impure.
80. As conscious agents of morality, we subscribe to the practice of virtues and respect. We must accede to the view that we grow wiser with knowledge and come to understand more deeply the conceptualisation of morality.
81. People may believe in numerous things that are presumed to be either immoral or moral in nature. They may believe in justice or injustice. What allows us to see the veracity of something is not the guise of immorality, but rather the truth of that morality.
82. We are inclined to believe in things that imbue our convictions or define our faith. Faith is a blind man’s conviction. It is not the moral compass of morality. It is merely the precursor to the errant nature of an ulterior ego.
83. The greatest achievement of morality is to be sapient and devout to the cause it serves and the purpose it demonstrates. If we allow zealots to impose their morality, then we permit morality to become flawed and unjust in its judgement.
84. To know our imperfections and flaws is to be morally just and not compromised. It is when we are truly mindful of these things that we are deeply immersed in our consciousness and reality.
85. We have the ability to refine our vision of morality through wisdom and knowledge. It is vital to our development that we heed the ampliative teachings of philosophy. Once we have attained understanding, we culminate the process of philosophical fulfilment.
86. To acknowledge rectitude based on, or inferred from, righteousness is only a presumption of truth. It does not signify that it is the truth. By assuming it is, one is neglecting the truth.
87. I can choose to be moral or immoral. We are not born with either trait, but I possess a mind that distinguishes between the two. When we decide to act on either, we are confronted by the inevitable consequence of that choice.
88. How we treat others largely depends on how others treat us. How we judge others depends on how we are judged. From the teachings of philosophy, we learn not to depend on others, but to depend on ourselves.
89. To conceal what we think and feel is to assume that we are less moral. To express what we think and feel is to presume we are more moral. Life does not make people indistinct, people do.
90. The Oracle bestows upon us knowledge we did not possess, and wisdom we could not utilise. It is not merely the perception of morality to which we must be attentive; rather, we must heed the mind and its emerging consciousness.
91. When we discover our goodness, we are able to confront our evil. To claim that we have no evil within us is to foolishly discard our mortal humanity.
92. A person can choose to be good or evil, or can believe that good and evil are tangible reflections of the self. The manifold things we do in life are, consequently, reflections of our good or bad character and actions.
93. Evil and good are embodied in our deeds and actions. Philosophy teaches us that we are not born good or evil; rather, we instinctively or intuitively learn to become good or evil.
94. This does not preclude us from becoming good after being evil, or evil after being good. It simply denotes the feasibility of such transformation within our idiosyncrasy and mind.
95. A human being can be taught to be good or evil in life; yet it is the immediate action of that individual which ultimately determines the sequential consequence of the act undertaken.
96. There are times when we believe we are doing good for the benefit of others, even while knowingly and willingly committing a wrong act, and justifying it with an ostensibly good intention.
97. Morality is not meant to be entirely complex. It is we humans who make it seem more complex in nature and essence. This is influenced by our uncertainties. Our intellectual exploration has no true limits, except those imposed by our minds and our lack of acceptance of its moral nature.
98. What we learn in life must be applied equally to morality. If we have not learnt life’s difficult lessons, how can we expect to learn morality’s inspirational ones?
99. The question seldom answered yet often asked is: what purpose does our morality serve when it is overtly restricted or limited in its expression? “Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts,” said Aristotle.
100. Can we express our morality without the liberty of uninhibited volition? Thus, what use is the concept of morality if we do not possess the capacity for free will?
Recommend Write a ReviewReport