Who is Moral?

I asked google to define what a moral person is. Google said that a moral person is someone who 'conforms to a standard of which is right and good. This implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right or wrong.'

The psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg uses four stages to explain the development of morality. These stages work on the understanding that as a person goes through cognitive development, their morality develops to. If abiding by this theory, we should believe that people start off with a very limited perspective on morality; using our role models to determine from a young age, right from wrong. As we develop, we should therefore seek to determine our own code of morality, partially based on societal values, and eventually depart from societies conventions or 'accepted notions' as google called it, and make moral decisions based on our own understanding and perception of right and wrong.

When understanding Kohlberg's theory, I struggled to believe that this quantification of an abstract concept could truly be used as a tool for which we define the development of said moral compass. Yet, when grappling with this idea, I saw my issue was not the abstract concept, but rather the way the definition of a 'moral' person tends to over simplify the human condition.

According to Kohlberg, a person that chooses to return an item that they have purchased amongst other items but not paid for, is morally upstanding. This person, theoretically, has achieved stage 5 in moral development. But does this make them a 'moral person'?

I sincerely doubt it. To me, Kohlberg's theory seems to suggest that one morally upstanding act means that you are a morally upstanding person. But what about the person who returns the item to the store, yet is cheating on his wife? Or the person who hides behind his charitable public persona, but beats his children and abuses his wife? Kohlberg's theory didn't seem to have any answers to the real moral dilemmas that people are faced with. To me, the essence of a truly moral person is someone who acts in private exactly how they would in public - if they give charity publicly, they would do this privately as well. A person does not abuse his children in private but behave beautifully in public yet remain a morally upstanding part of society. The implication that one good act makes you a good person is narrow minded, and ignores the complexity of human nature in so many ways.

The age restrictions that Kohlberg seemed to impose on moral development was the second thing that frustrates me immensely. Kohlberg seemed to suggest that morality develops with age. This would imply that children and young adults are incapable of making complex moral decisions. And that would be wrong.

When faced with a decision that would change everything, what would you do? Being someone in this predicament, having to make a decision that would change everything was the hardest thing I had to do. Before making my choice, I consulted a few adults, who were about as much help as one of those 'motivational posters' that aim to cheer someone up but in reality do nothing. Adults were sympathetic with the difficulty of my choice, but could offer nothing themselves, mostly admitting they had no idea what the right thing to do would be. So all alone, at seventeen, I had to come to a decision myself about the right, or 'moral' thing to do.

Admittedly, I might be haunted by this decision a year later, but ultimately, when weighing up two extremely difficult realities, I chose the one that was most moral, according to my own definition. So, no whilst my moral development according to Kohlberg should have prevented me from making a moral decision, I was able to anyway.

So in an attempt to answer my own question, who is moral?
I had to ask myself what is moral? A question that I don't think Google, or Kohlberg have answered particularly well. One good deed does not make you a good person, just as one bad deed doesn't make you a bad person. Being moral is about acting out of principle with good intentions, in order to do something that you understand to be correct, no matter the circumstance.

The truth, when I really thought about it, is that moral is not a mutually exclusive character trait. Morality is a sliding scale that we use to measure the intentions of our behaviour. It is a empty word, with shallow meanings, that society uses in order to fit actions into boxes.

So if I really ask myself who is moral? The only real answer I could come up with that didn't make me uncomfortable, is to say that moral is the person that acts with good intentions and deeds both publicly and privately. Moral is the person that gives charity publicly, and treats their family with respect and the way they deserve to be treated. Moral is the person without double standards or contradicting ideas. But moral isn't really a person at all, its a persona that we choose to take upon ourselves, a continually evolving entity that isn't bound by age, rather by experience.

-LF, LR and MG xx

People Come and People Go

Everyone experiences many kinds of people. People who are funny, smart, gentle, kind, responsible, jokey, and so on. People who are there for you when you need them, or that you are there for when they need you. People who stick around for a long time, or people you meet for a day.

My point is that people can walk in and walk out of your life at any time. This brings about mixed emotions; it is so exciting when a new friend strolls into your life and is bound to stick around for ages, but on the other hand, an old friend who waltzes out of your life without you even noticing is startling and upsetting.

In life, this will happen so much. I guarantee that the majority of the people from your day care when you were only a toddler walked out of your life practically as soon as you walked out of those doors for the last time. I guess it just hurts more when you grow up, and did not expect to see people leave so soon.

Say you discover a brand new, flashy group of friends. You bond over endless laughter and various hobbies in common, or even hobbies that are different that are so fresh and interesting that you wish to find out more. This is one of the greatest feelings - connecting with people that you instantly recognise will become a close friend and important figure in your life. However, at the expense of these sparkly new friends, there is a loss of some old faces. You didn't notice them leaving, but one day it hits you and you feel an overwhelming pang of sadness. You see them with their flashy new friends and smile because you know they feel the same way that you do, but there's still this selfish part of your brain that says "but that was me 12 years ago".

I heard a metaphor in this video (credit to Dodie Clark, my inspiration for so many things), which links life to one big bus journey. People will enter and exit the bus at many different times, but you will be on this bus witnessing everyone passing by. The lesson that I gained from this metaphor is to not be too upset over the passengers that have stuck by for the longest time, but to look back and feel pleased that they did travel with you for so long. This lesson is particularly relevant at the moment to me, and will become even more so, as the three of us begin our university journeys.

Thank you for reading this, it has felt good to be blogging again. I am so sorry for my prolonged absence...I kind of fell out of love with blogging for a few different reasons, but this rambling has been oddly cathartic. Needless to say, I have regained my love and I will not go on a hiatus this long again.

-LF, LR and MG

xxx

Accidentally Jealous

Do you ever accidentally feel intensely jealous of another person?

I know this is a strange way of phrasing something, but the term 'accidentally jealous' defines how I'm currently feeling.

Let's just say that a friend of yours is an extremely high achiever. Whether they are naturally clever or not, they always end up with the top results of the class, or even the year group. This person's results have got absolutely nothing to do with you. The results that you achieved were fine, they helped you move onto the next step...so why do you feel bad?

Let's just say that you and a friend are both auditioning for a play. The two of you have roles that you aspire to get, but by the end, your friend gains a fantastic role. You should feel so pleased for this person - great, they've managed to squeeze through such a tricky, competitive competition and gain a brilliant part in the play. Yet there's a huge pang of sorrow in your heart - should you not have got the role?

Let's just say that your friend has a crush on another person within your friendship group. After a few months, they act upon it and become boyfriend and girlfriend. (Or same sex - my example may-or-may-not be based on real life). You are extremely excited for your friends, who have found a whole new happiness in each other and in themselves. But you start to think about the amount of 'friends' that you have liked a little (or a LOT) more than a friend...why did things not end up like that between the two of you?

I like to call this 'accidental jealousy'. Where you know that rationally, you should feel happy for another person, when you actually feel a little bit sad that you are not in the same/similar position.

It has occurred to me recently that this is not a rare thing and, in fact, is quite normal. After all, that  role was made for you, you deserved those As and that boy that you liked should definitely have been into you - like have you seen your reflection??!!

Anyway, I feel like this is okay. It is okay to feel this way. So long as it's only a short while. You need to find away to put those feelings aside, shove them into a box and lock it, so that you can be a pleasure to be around again. You can't necessarily vocalise these feelings as it may come back around and slap you in the face. And you certainly cannot lose confidence over it. So life seems to be going in favour of your friends right now, but your time is coming.

-LF, LR and MG
xxx