Why Build Your Own Moral Compass
I am pondering the thought "Build your own moral compass" and I will try to verbalize my thoughts. In this context, I would like to chat. I am not using your services as a search engine, so please do not provide me links to any material. Those links distract me and make me lose my focus. Are you ready?
The Line of Reasoning
What is a moral compass?
Everyone has a moral compass; and different people usually have different moral compasses.
If everyone already has a moral compass, then what is the point of the suggestion: "Build your own moral compass"?
Our upbringing, our society, our experiences automatically have shaped our moral compass.
"Build your own moral compass" means participate in shaping your moral compass. Actively decide what is in it and what is not in it. Make it your own - rather than using what you automatically got.
There is one thing in common across the moral compasses of almost all people. They all want a better life. What the word "better" means to them may differ. But they all what "better".
A conflict within a society almost always is because different people have different and conflicting meaning of what "good" means to them, and hence what "better" means to them, and hence the conflict.
How do people view conflict? Is it good? Is it bad? Is it better?
Do people wish that conflict continue?
Most likely, most people do not wish for continued conflict. In that case, they must consider conflict as something less than "good"; and hence definitely not "better". That is, most likely, most people think that conflict is bad.
So, for the conflict to get resolved, someone's view of what is "good" and what is "better" has to change.
That is, for a conflict to get resolved, people should be open to a change in their moral compass.
Would it be "better" if only one side is open to change, while the other side is not? If yes, then which side?
Would it be fair if only one side is open to change, while the other side is not?
I think that most people, when they consider the questions in the previous two paragraphs, will say that it would not be fair, it would not be better, that only one side is open to change, while the other side is not.
Why? because no one wants to be forced to be on the side that should be open while the other is not required to be open.
Imagine an "all knowing entity" watching a conflict between two parties.
While we will not know what the all knowing entity knows, we can theorize the possibilities. This entity may know that both parties are wrong, or one of the parties is right and other is wrong, or both are partially wrong.
If the entity would reveal the knowledge that the entity possess, then would the party who is completely or partially wrong be embarrassed? Would they abandon their wrong viewpoint? Would they make a change to their moral compass after considering this knowledge given by the all knowing entity?
In real life, there is no all knowing entity revealing the truth. We have to make up our own mind about it. And this is where the problem lies. The problem is that we may be wrong, and yet we hold on to ideas that we think are right without giving an opposing idea a fair chance of convincing us of its validity.
Note that we discussed an "opposing idea having a fair chance of convincing us". We did not say that a person was convincing us. People on other side merely give us their ideas and thoughts. We are the ones who evaluate those ideas and thoughts. It is those ideas and thoughts that are attempting to convince us to change our mind.
We have not learnt well enough to critically examine our thoughts and ideas. Once we learn that, we become "better". And "better" is the bedrock of anyone's moral compass.
The reason to "Build your own moral compass", is to "be an active participant in shaping it", to discover for oneself what is "better", what is "good". Anyone who does not desire to be "better" does not need a moral compass, does not need to shape it, leave alone building it. Because such persons can readily accept anything dictated to them as "good".
We all desire "better". We all desire to be better, to have better things. That includes you, me and everyone else. This may lead to a conflict. We know that it is better to resolve the conflict. For that, we all should be willing to redefine our own idea of "better". When we all are doing it, we are building a "better society".
And when we are building a "better society", we can wonder: how far can we take this betterment of our society?
I think there is plenty of room for betterment. When a society reaches the point on its "progress path" from which it cannot be made any better, then that society can be termed an "ideal society" - a Utopia. Note that ideal is not perfection; and hence a Utopia is not a perfect society.
It is "ideal" because the desire for "better" exists, but "possibility" does not seem to exist.
When we are building a "better society", we can also aspire to build an "ideal society" - a Utopia. And all that starts with "having a moral compass".
Moral compass leads us in our quest for a better life. When "having a moral compass" is done well by almost all of us, we get a better society. From then the road to an ideal society is easy. It is just a few more steps.
Analyze
Are the ideas presented in this discussion any good?
Are the ideas presented in this discussion "better" than what we do today?
What does a "line of reasoning" actually mean?
Analyze the line of reasoning in this discussion and point out its premises and conclusions.
What are your thoughts on this line of reasoning and its flow?
Which subject area of thought and study is this discussion a part of?
Where can I read more about the ideas mentioned in this discussion and related ideas.
Who has contributed substantially to the subject areas that this discussion is a part of?
Summarize
Summarize this discussion in 10 sentences and in a single sentence.
Present the elements of this discussion in 10 proverb-style sentences.
Present the elements of this discussion as 10 "Code-of-conduct" sentences.
Present the elements of this discussion as 10 sentences where each sentence is of the following form: X versus Y. When you do that, highlight the X and Y and keep the rest of the sentence in normal font.