Leading a moral life worthy of emulation
A moral life lived without a constant rational or logical check on oneself is not worthy of emulation. Socrates says, "the unexamined life is not worth living." It's then up to everyone to determine what kind of life to lead. It's either examined or unexamined, reflection, or non-reflection. There are no two ways or midpoint about it.
Many are confused about whose role it is to determine moral standards. From philosophers to religious leaders, mentors the list is long. But let me say this...
It's not the duty of philosophers or a particular set of persons alone to search for and proffer ethical standards appropriate for society. It's a role for all and sundry...
Everyone should be aware of the moral weight of their actions, both to the living and unborn generations. Hence, this awareness of the moral consequences of our actions should lead to holistic approaches to ethical standards.
Reason should play a significant role in putting us always on guard, checking out erroneous ethical theories, formulations, basis, and banishing them outrightly...
Banishing inconsistent assumptions comes with problems attributed to human nature. We set up standards that we don't follow up in the long run. Instead, we opt for actions we once considered immoral and ethically poisoning.
Although there is no universally accepted theory of morality, it should not be the case we lead lives without ethical foundations because there is not that single source of morality. We should realize that "theory without practice is barren and practice without theory is blind." That constant search for answers should be our guide to establishing standards of behaving.
The inconsistencies of present ethical theories should not lead to the conclusion that standards of morality cannot be had, as that may lead to committing the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. We should strive for some balance.
What do you think about this piece? I would love you to air your views while you await a sequel to this...