Recently, for better or worse, I have plunged into a discourse for which I am decidedly unqualified. Specifically, I have, in my own plodding and rudimentary way, initiated an examination of moral (which, despite philosophical protestations a plenty, I consider as synonymous with "virtuous") behavior. I am specifically interested in it "roots" - from whence does it come and upon what notions - internal (innate) or external (taught) - is it given meaning to man. At the conception of this folly, I was convinced of several things but two leap to mind:

1. I am totally and completely inadequate for the task, and

2. The task itself is a very complex one even for one without my obvious handicaps.

Regardless of the fact that I feel like the skinny guy at the intellectual beach and muscle men are lining up to kick sand in my face (or the nightmare of the late Senator Lloyd Bentsen remarking: "You, sir, are no philosopher."), I have started this disharmonic band a playing and will, lemming-like, follow where it may lead me. In truth, it is my own unquenchable curiosity with the subject that compels me to attempt this "philosophical Everest." It must be so, as I have no delusions of adding any lucidity to a subject which readers can certainly find more insight on elsewhere. But, having said that, perhaps there is a smidgen of value in reading the description of an aardvark (morality) by a blind man (that would be moi). If that might possibly be true, then the effort may be, conceivably, worthwhile to someone other then the author. Sometimes, the simplest examination can be more useful that the reverend tomes of the ancient illuminati. It is well-known that young children can often teach their parents what might not be obvious to their elder’s eyes. Let us hope that this might be true here, as well.

Immanuel Kant drew a fine point in discussing the moral life. He discussed the various "planes" (he did not call them that) of obligations - duties - that we are subjected to in every day life. We are, of course, constrained by city, state and federal laws that bind us to certain behaviors in certain circumstances. We may desire to drive 80 miles per hour down a street or retain all our income that we have earned but the law, as agreed upon by the society as a whole, disallows such behavior. Similarly, some are guided by the tenets, laws and customs of their church. We are, likewise, confined by culture - the norms of the society in which we live. For example, if we desire to jog without clothes, we are likely to be brought to heel by not only the prevailing laws against such behavior, but also will be ostracized by the society in which we live.

If we belong to particular subgroups - clubs, the military, or the like - we are subject to yet another set of regulations and constraints. These, however, are voluntary and are of our own choosing. If ever these constraints run counter to our personal morality, we may exempt ourselves from them by withdrawing from the club or seeking discharge from the military. In point of fact, if the governmental laws of our city, state or national governments should compel or restrain us against our personal morality, theoretically we might opt out of them by emigrating.

The argument presented, first by Aristotle, and now by Kant, was that simply following these external boundaries and laws have little to do with true moral living. They would argue that even without external constraints, the truly moral man lives according to a "higher", inner code. This is the essence of "acting good and doing good." And, in the truly moral man, his personal beacon is the highest in the hierarchy of restraint. A virtuous and moral man does not need external rules to govern his behavior. In a land without external laws of any type or from any source, the virtuous man would behave virtuously and morally by tempering his desires and passions.

A self-regulated man allows himself to be constrained by external rules as long as these do not violate his higher codification. Further, a man with a well-cultivated and grounded moral apparatus will not forfeit his own code to that which is external to him. This is key. When the Jim Crow Laws were the law of the South, a truly moral man with a personal code formulated by rational thought would never have submitted to such an irrational system. He would, buttressed with personal morality that supercedes all other restraints, would not comprehend the rationale for restricting access to facilities (restaurant, levorotary, water fountains, schools, etc.) of fellow humans due to the color of their skin, hair texture or other meaningless criteria. If he were bold, he would have challenged them and faced the consequences of his rebellion, knowing full-well that the result may have been loss of his property or, even, his own death. If he were less courageous, he would simply abandon his city and state and transplanted he and his family to a region where the laws did not exist. Either, in the eyes of Aristotle and Kant, would have been rational, virtuous decisions.

In Nazi Germany of the early 1930s, a virtuous and moral man would have defied the onerous Nuremberg Laws which were designed to discriminate against the Jewish people under the laughable pretense of "protecting German honor and German blood." Yes, it was the "law of the land" but it was not rational nor was it, to the self-guided man, moral. The measure of a moral man comes in such times. When faced with the choice of complying with his irrational and immoral law or facing severe punishment for nonconformity, the choice of the man who has a strong compass is clear and simple. While there were some among the German citizenry with such characteristics, the masses were otherwise inclined. And the horrors that resulted have been well-documented.

Human beings, despite the capacity to develop a well-founded internal compass based, primarily, on inborn empathy and cultivated through practice and habit, have, throughout history, fallen short of the ideal. Sadly, recent atrocities in Mogadishu, Rwanda, Chechnya, Darfur, Oklahoma City, Madrid and London, and New York City on 9/11/2001 lend stark evidence that little progress has been made in human morality since Jim Crow or Nuremberg. Consistently, religious, tribal or national fervor trumps human morality in the vast majority of mankind. It has always been so - and more is the pity of man.

The question that presents itself at this point is, simply, what is the solution? Certainly, as history has writ large, it is not religion. While the teachings of the church have done much to quell the passions of man in the last two millennia, I am convinced that no greater horrors have been inflicted upon mankind through recorded time than those inspired by misshaped religious dogma. I believe what Blaise Pascal wrote: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" (Pensées, 1670)

From its inception, millennia ago, religion was a formidable tool for controlling the animal passions of man. The Ten Commandments were sent to man through Moses to, simply enough, bridle human appetites, not to establish principles of worshiping The Author. In distant times when simple minds prevailed and education was a rare gift, religion gave structure, meaning and a system of reward and punishment. The parables of religious writings were elementary, easy to remember and focused the eyes of man not on his mean and brutish earthly struggles to survive but on heaven and rewards to come. True to its purpose, the savagery of mankind was appeased. Religion has not only civilized the savage human but has inspired man to great things: in art, poetry and architecture, man has reached for perfection to please the Eye of God.

But, frequently misguided and misinterpreted, religion also became a powerful tool for evil and persecution. Religion can be transmogrified by ill-will. It can be refocused through the bent lenses of wicked men to cast the eyes of man not on the rewards of a life lived well but on the concept of "the other" - other people, other religions. And, when bastardized in this odious manner, religion is an awesome and potent tool of demagoguery and evildoers. When man’s gaze is diverted from heaven and refocused on whatever people might be labeled as "pagans", then comes the holocaust. History is littered with the horror of crusades, pogroms, reformations and inquisitions - fancy names for one thing: murder in the name of God.

Thus, Janus-faced religion - spiritually uplifting but often manipulated and mutated - can only remain true to its divine purpose (the pathway to Heaven through good will on earth) when it emphasizes, teaches and codifies that there are many ways to worship the Divine and all are sacred in the His Eyes. Indeed, what does it matter what one calls the Father of the World? God, Jahweh, Allah, Durga or Buddha - names sacred to people of the world’s major religions - should be allowed worship unmolested by whomever wishes to follow that path.

Let us look elsewhere for deliverance from earthly vice and the "solitary, short, nasty, brutish life" that we are heir to. All that is outside ourselves - influence of peer groups, societal laws, cultural standards, religious doctrine - are subject to horrific transfiguration by men of ill will. It is only through personal introspection, wisdom and elevation of the human mind can we truly achieve what rightly should be our goal as a part of the human community: a moral and virtuous life.