What's in Morality? Is it for Every one?

Philosophy teaches the purpose of our life and should one go about achieving it. Ethics (as I will define it later for it varies for every one) is relevant to every one. Morality refers to the code of values each of us uses to decide on the choices and actions we make. Values define our goals and purposes. Ethics is the discipline, which seeks to define and integrate these values. All statements that include "have to," have a hidden agenda of "why," in them. I have to do this or that it contingent on the need to do. Values we draw to satisfy these needs rather than otherwise. "Good or bad" at first is determined by how an act fulfils my needs; then the needs of the society and on a larger scale afterwards the mankind. Philosophers have beaten their heads to define absolute "good," such as God but so far we have failed in arriving at a universal definition of what is good? The only aspect that must be considered here is that the existence of choice must exist to differentiate between good and bad. "Good for what?" is another way of asking - "What is the purpose?". If values are that which one acts to gain or keep, then values do not only presuppose a valuer, but also an alternative. The absence of an alternative means that no action is in fact possible. Even more fundamentally, there is no choice available. Something that occurs automatically and cannot be changed, cannot be a value. For example, freedom cannot be a value if the absence or restriction of freedom is not possible. I will put it another way. If one's freedom is automatic and can never be taken away, freedom can never be a goal or purpose. And if not a purpose, nor can it be a value. Likewise, if there is no alternative to slavery, freedom cannot be a value, as freedom does not exist as an alternative.

Coming to more concrete theories; we look at the utilitarian theory wherein an action is moral if it increases the quantitative pleasure of the group. If murder, theft, and slavery can increase this "sum pleasure", then these actions are defined as moral. An application of this principle would allow nine starving men to eat the tenth. The principal fails because it fails to ask, "good for whom," question. Kant's deontological "rule driven" ethics creates the "golden rule" - one should do unto others what one wishes them to do unto oneself. An action is moral only if one has no desire to perform it, but performs it out of a sense of duty and derives no benefit from it whatsoever (material or spiritual). This means that if one has no desire to be evil, one cannot be good; if one has, one can. Duty is Kant's standard of virtue, his morality, the morality of absolute selflessness.

There are few other philosophic arguments by famous guys in the field to throw you off but I believe there is only one tenable solution to the intractable dilemma of judging morality--by bringing in the human nature. We are after all insecure living creatures. Our need for survival determines the first pillar of our morality. Since must perform the act of living, he must make choices that that kicks in the morality issue automatically. Rocks do not have morality and animals do not have volational consciousness to make choice about life. Man is not born with automatic knowledge of good or evil, he must discern it from the choice he must make to survive. Values thus have no place in morality, I conclude. It is a metaphysical necessity for his survival, the standard being our own life. Morality is thus a virtue of survival. Period.