Morals, a bit like the Commandments, are handed down as guidelines to good and decent behaviour. A moral person will obey rules that have been set down by elders, wise, possibly religious teachers and leaders of society, not to leave out Aeosop, of course. These rules’ seem to be in place to lead people away from anarchy, nihilism, decadence and in some societies, hell-fire. Morals are learned thoughts, a philosophy encouraging civilised behaviour. Civilised behaviour meaning knowing the difference between right and wrong, obeying the rules of conduct that separate us from our savage , pagan, instinctive selves. A moral person must rid himself or herself of immoral thoughts and enter into an ongoing process of sanitising their inner voice and feelings. The danger of assumed success in this , the belief that one has achieved morality is that every immoral thought or action has to be someone else’s fault. An example that springs to mind would be the preacher in the pulpit delivering a hell fire and brimstone speech to his sinful congregation; a long finger pointing at the guilty out there without hoisting in his own culpability; there have to be sinners in order for there to be saints. To be moral implies a victory over immorality, assuming we are not born moral, that it is wisdom learned after a battle or as an ongoing battle against a natural state of immorality.

So, morality might well be nurtured by our upstanding parents who fear that natural being’, if left untended, could possibly descend into decadence, lawlessness, and chaos; The Lord of the Flies’ springs to mind as an example of what might happen to us without constraint, without good parental guidance. A person with moral fibre is somebody who will act out flawlessly the proper rules of engagement. He or she may be slightly apart from the crowd at a social gathering, or even in church or in an office because to be morally upstanding must be an ongoing, uphill battle, made no easier by having to climb over the lesser beings tumbling down that hill and getting in the way. Is it possible to be a bit moral; to have moral leanings, to get the point of them without losing one’s private, internal anarchist?

Valuing something doesn’t automatically assume that it is moral or right to do so. There is value in the Native Americans’ spirituality that includes and gives honour to the beast inside and out. Is it possible to value constraint in similar measure to valuing lack of it, a bit of both in appropriate places, if that isn’t a contradiction in terms? To value the law and value breaking the law without harm or endless messes to clear up, becoming a victim to it, could be a possibility… a wise woman, back in the 1960’s said as part of a lecture on behavioural psychology, that she would never smoke dope at the policeman’s ball! Very wise advice; you can’t beat city hall or not very often and it would be better to keep within certain frameworks that work and keep you out of endless fine-paying or even going to jail. I value kindness and generosity, a good argument, honesty even though scalding, a rip roaring row with no holds barred, to be hugged better soon after, a beautiful piece of music by the amoral Mozart, freedom of choice and as my last example and by far the best, Sex in the City’!

What is valuable to me may not be valuable to anyone else, it is personal and organic and doesn’t smack of anyone else’s persuasion or brain washing; it isn’t something that belongs in the judgement seat or in the witness box, it has nothing to do with right or wrong. Values creep up on us as we swing between clean and dirty, tidy and messy, failing and winning; they evolve from feeling good or bad at the sight, smell and touch of a theory, object, person, animal, piece of music, colour, taste and behaviour. The permutations are too many for any of us to have identical values and isn’t that wonderful? Our values are like snowflakes, no two the same.

Write your article here