“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”-William Shakespeare

“What is the right thing to do?” A longing question, almost every human being has come across at some point in their life. A question that pleads to the understanding of attributes that make an action just or unjust. Ethics is the philosophical study of morality, and morality refers to the beliefs concerning “right” and “wrong”, whether that be a judgment, value, rule, principle, or theory. Morality is what governs what we “ought” to do, and how we go about doing so. However, how may we logically accomplish doing “right” without first defining what the “right” thing to do is? Some turn to philosophers, such as the non-consequentialist Immanuel Kant or the consequentialist John Stuart Mill, whom attempt to help us depict the good, while others turn to a higher being and doctrines to assist them in making the “right” decisions. The greatest question of all, however, is whether morality is static or circumstantial. With the uncertainty in a higher power, the difficulty in naming an objective good, the differences amongst the human race, and spontaneity and contingency of everyday life, I conclude that morality must be circumstantial.

The first distinction in sorting out morality is the depiction between “consequentialist” and “non-consequentialist”. A consequentialist argues that the outcome of an action demonstrates the goodness with in it, where as a non-consequentialist is not concerned about the outcome, but rather the action took to produce it. For example, Immanuel Kant, prescribing to his own moral beliefs of “Kantianism” writes, morality revolves entirely around duty rather than emotions or end goals- making him a non-consequentialist. Kant believes a lie is wrong, and, due to that, no matter what the circumstance, you must not lie. On the other hand exists the moral beliefs of utility. A utilitarian believes that morality equates to the greatest good for the greatest number- thus making it a consequentialist belief. Utilitarians believe that although a lie is wrong, if it is to protect more people than it will hurt, then it is moral to lie.

All these theories are set in place to give human beings moral structure. Those who do not look to these ethical theories for answers, however, may be devoted to their own faith. Many say that religion plays as the foundation of morality. With the progression of humanity, religion was almost implicated in a way to guide lost people. To have people act in a civilized manor by glorifying the limitations set by their dogma, with their state of their afterlife being held as collateral. The Ten Commandments, the Triple Gems of Jainism, Islam’s Sharia’s, Buddhism's eight fold path, and so on, all provide rules and some even consequences for many moral discrepancies- such as, abortion, homosexuality, infidelity, and murder. These religious books write the rules for what is right and wrong. However, without the absolute affirmation of these claimed deities, can we differentiate between what is just and unjust?

Without God there is no valid justification for any kind of morality. As human beings, the omnipotent, all knowing image we have created for God, result in his commands being the only one promising enough to guide us people. The Talmud says in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, "If there is no Torah there is no ethics, and if there is no ethics, there is no Torah" (Ethics of the Fathers, 3:17). The ethical views of the Torah are here simply stated- without God, there can be no morality. On the other hand, with God, morality is very easily understood, and very easily followed. To myself it seems that the only chance the world has at objectively claiming morality is through the commandments of God. Without the implication of a higher being, morality cannot be understood on an objective level, nor a static one.

I see the ideology of “righteousness” or “goodness” as falling into two categories; subjective good, and objective good. Nevertheless, without being able to depict what is specifically good in this world, one cannot depict the bad. But more importantly, one cannot establish morality. Examples of the search for “what is good” are found in Plato’s Euthyphro, in which begs the question of morality. The Euthyphro is a dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro himself. Euthyphro states: “Piety.. is that which is dear to the Gods, and impiety is that which is not dear to them.” (Euthyphro) From the start, Euthyphro attempts to describe righteousness as a concrete abstraction. With his argument being; if the gods say it to be, then it must be. However, Socrates had a problem with that. Due to the plurality in the word “gods”, Socrates notes that their are circumstances in which the gods disagree. What would he conclude to be righteous then? This creates a quarrel between Socrates and Euthyphro, concluding in Socrates questioning; "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” (Euthyphro) In other words, is something good because the gods say it to be, or do they say it to be because it is good? Here the validity of goodness is question, begging the question; can something ever unanimously be defined as good? The world's population as a whole cannot compromise on even one thing they believe to be universally good. For example, in Africa, female genital mutilation or “circumcision” is considered holy. An act that in the United States of America would be considered heinous and illegal, in Africa it is considered a cultural sign of purity. It is not that the women in these cultures are pleading for help, it is one of their cultural norms. Another example of searching for universal good can be found in the medical field. Suppose in the United States of America, a doctor believes he/she constructed a vaccination that could potentially be the cure to cancer. In this specific instance, in order to affirm that this vaccine is in fact the cure, he/she must inject a willing, entirely cancer free and healthy person with the vaccination. If this individual reacts well to the vaccination, it could save the lives of millions, however if it goes wrong, it could be fatal. What is the “good” or “right” thing to do in this scenario?

Fortunately, whether true goodness does or does not exist, is not the question to be pondered. For regardless of whether it does or not, through government as a society, we have made morality exist. Making the greatest question of all- is morality static or circumstantial? If one is to conclude morality is static, it would call for a universal law, meaning regardless of the progression of humanity and changes within society, as the sky is consistently blue, alike is morality, static. For example, in the case of the Africans, we would be morally obligated to forbid them from engaging in female mutilation, for harming another is wrong, and despite their cultural practices, it is unethical, and must be stopped. In the scenario with the doctor, we must also take action. Regardless if it could save millions of people, murder is wrong, thus we could not use the vaccine on any living human being.

On the contrary, if one is to state morality as circumstantial then they have more flexibility within their decisions. In the case of African mutilation, if one is to prescribe their beliefs to circumstantial morality they may not interfere with the Africans, for it has always been incorporated into their culture to circumcise women. Thus, why should a person with no understanding of the culture interfere with their history? Additionally, in regards to the doctor, perhaps a person who viewed morality circumstantially would be more in favor of injecting a willing, healthy human being with a vaccine that could change the world.

I believe morality is completely circumstantial. As human beings, it is innate in our nature to survive. Secondary to our survival, humanity, I believe, is also a part of who we are. For those who authorize evolution as the ultimate theory of creation, if early human beings or neanderthals went around murdering each other, we would not be here today. However, I am sure that down the line, if food was not available, an uncivilized human being would not hesitate to use a dead being as means to food. Therefore, I do believe goodness and humanity exist within human beings, for they would not commit murder out of boredom or curiosity. On the other hand, instinctual survival inclinations could trump that, or in other words: circumstances.

Another way of looking at morality circumstantially, is through the obvious differences in human beings. From where we were born, the parents that raised us, to the bias that has been subconsciously rooted into us through our nurture; aside from our biological similarities, every human being is dissimilar. Where we begin our adventure of life, predetermines the campus in which we can travel in, similarly the morals we inherit. Homosexuality for example has become a much more understood and accepted concept, specifically in Europe and in America. For many people in America, it is not considered “immoral” to be homosexual. However, in the Middle East, claiming homosexuality as a part of your identity could result in the death penalty. In those countries, their culture does dictate homosexuality as “immoral”. Therefore, circumstantial morality must exist, if the same act in different parts of the world can be inferred in different ways, logically, it is not the act that is differentiating in moral goodness, but rather the circumstance that is influencing it.

While circumstantial morality can be easily depicted from culture to culture, it is also present in the spontaneity, and contingency of every day life. For example, let us think back to the William Brown, an American cruise ship that began to sink between England and America. There were eighty two people on board, with seventeen of them being sea mean, and sixty five being passengers. The ship hit a glacier in the middle of the ocean and immediately split in two. Following this, thirty two people immediately went down. The captain, eight sea mean and one passenger made it to the jolly boat, which was one of the emergency boats on board. While, the remaining nine crew men and thirty two passengers occupied the additional emergency boat, the long boat. The two boats holding the survivors met together and decided the best strategy for survival would be to go in separate directions. The jolly boat, conducted by the captain, successfully made it back to land. The long boat, which held the crew men and passengers, had however had come across some complications. The boat was only equipped with food and water to assist in the survival of twelve people, yet it was holding forty one. In fear that they would all perish in the middle of the ocean, the crewmen decide to throw twelve people overboard.To their surprise, later that day, another ship picked them up. The families of the victims thrown into the sea pressed charges. The crewmen physically lifted men and threw them overboard into the middle of the ocean, certain by doing so, they would die. You would think that it would be easy to conclude that this was murder. Yet, in the case of the United States V. Holmes, (the crewmen charged for the twelve deaths) a grand jury presented before Supreme Court Justice Henry Baldwin, refused to indict him on that charge. Due to “special circumstances” the crewman charged- Alexander Holmes was only held in jail until the trial was over, and was only fined twenty dollars. This man was involved in taking a human life, yet his legal jurisdiction and moral implication was demonstrated by the circumstance. Due to being in the middle of the ocean following a ship wreck, his act of murder was not considered as heinous. Had it had been a a body thrown out of a docked yacht, I am sure this case would have been handled differently.

While I agree with circumstantial morality, I do not prefer it. Ironically, I myself do take advantage of a white lie, yet I still feel most comfortable, pay the most attention to, and ultimately prefer the Christian perspective on morality. I am a believer that we are all born sinners, and there are some actions that are truly wrong, regardless of the circumstance. I can understand and have empathy as to why some actions can be considered “not as bad”, due to circumstance. Regardless, I find that action wrong. For example, in the case of the shipwreck, I can understand why the crewmen felt obligated to act in a certain way. Yet, I feel I can confidently say, regardless of the circumstance, I could never use people as means to ends. I feel that regardless of situation inducing the action, the action will come with consequences. Those consequences do not necessarily have to be being arrested for grand theft, or grounded for sneaking out, but the guilt feeling, the memory, and psychological impact following the act.

Morality in itself is such a dense topic to tackle. From the morality given to us by God, to morality simply interpreted by people, the search to define what is right is never ending. In our neighborhoods, our societies and our government, however, we have put morality into existence, in the form of rule books and somehow brought it to life. Making the heavier question at hand-is morality static or circumstantial? Through very much articulation, I have come to my own conclusion- circumstantial. Morality absolutely must be logical, and it can only be so if it is circumstantial. We can not conclude morality is based off of a higher power, for we cannot affirm the absolute existence of a higher power, thus making morality from God illogical. Objective good, and moral laws also are illogical, for the world cannot compromise on what true righteousness is. Thus, along with the spontaneity of every day life, I firmly conclude morality is purely circumstantial.