Ok. I'm not about to launch into a full-scale introduction to philosophy. That would take far too long and most likely bore you all to tears. Instead I'm going to have a go at writing about contemporary morality - a fraction of philosophy - and what I think of it.

Before I start, I wish to make one thing clear: this is all opinion! I could be wrong, I could be right, I could be a giant octopus living off the coast of what I believe to be Turkey (but that's a lesson for another time ). These are just some ideas that have been floating around in my mind, and now they're floating around in a blog. Make of them what you wish.

Morality is interpreted differently all across the world, and all across time. Take two nations, two ages or simply two communities and I doubt they will agree on what is right and wrong. Infact no, take two individuals and you'll find differences in belief. Why? Is killing not wrong? Do not all people agree that you should not steal, that emnity and hatred and wrong while compassion and kindness good?

The short answer is no, they do not. But of course, anyone with an inquisitive mind will find such an answer highly unsatisfactory as it explains absolutely nothing. why is there disagreement? Why are some things right and others wrong? Why does it even matter?

It is questions like this that make philosophy what it is. First, I am going to explore the question of "what is morality?"

So then, what is it? The difference between right and wrong? Certainly. But what does that mean?

For me, morality exists on two levels. There is social morality and individual morality. It's not hard to grasp the difference between them. Social morality is the prevailant morality present in a society or culture, that dictates how a person may act within the society and provides the ground rules of right and wrong. Mostly, this is what constitutes as law. Certainly law is, to my knowledge, bound by morality and often works to safeguard something to prevent wrongs from occuring. I don't know much about law, though. Some aspects may not be incorperated by law but simply accepted. I don't think it can be denied that some sort of morality does exist on a social scale, however.

Now this exists in every society. Circumstances in each of these places are different, the environment is different and the people are different. This means different ideas about morality will emerge. For example, the prevailant belief in much of the western world is that freedom and democracy are paramount. Certainly this seems to be the case, and I'm sure most people in such societies could argue that other forms of government tend to do more harm than good. But is that always true? Democracy works well for us, but that doesn't mean it will work for everyone does it?

This is getting a bit political, so I'm going to stop that train of thought there. Look out for the word relativity though. That should cue some sort of explanation to why I said what I did.

So, social morality exists to ensure society runs smoothly. It protects individuals and the whole, providing ways in which people can live without causing harm to each other (or to protect social values). It is designed to be universally accepted and adhered to, because to do otherwise would cause effects for individuals or society that are deemed to be wrong. This, at least, is my understanding of it. Social morality is a necessity if people wish to live together.

So what of personal morality? Well, this is likely to be shaped by the prevailant social morality of the time. This does not mean it will be identical to what is in place socially, and disagreements do happen, but there will almost certainly be influences (whether obvious or not). Personal morality is what you yourself feel to be right or wrong. This can be guided by society, by friends, by religion or any manner of other things. It is predominantly yours, and it is unlikely anyone else will share exactly the same beliefs as you.

Now, which is more important? Social or personal morality? Various figures have argued for both, although whichever they advocate they tend to speak of it as if it were morality as a whole. Utilitarianism, which says what is important is the "greatest happiness for the greatest number", very definitely deals with things on a social scale. Immanuel Kant on the other hand talks more about individuals, using his "Catagorical Imperative" as the guiding force behind our actions.

I would say both are very important. Social morality is needed in order to maintain some coherance and stability within society, but if we lose the notion of personal morality or personal beliefs we become little more than drones without individual concepts, ideas or indeed much individuality. I would say it is imperative that people do not break the social "code of conduct" and ensure their actions stay within the boundries of what is or is not allowed, for if people as a whole were to act otherwise the stability of society would shatter. But then, personal morality and thoughts are also vital because without it, we are not individuals.

But what if your personal morality conflicts with social morality? As appears so often in philosophical writings, this shall be furnished with an analogy. Let us assume you live in a society where, for some reason or another, it is considered to be highly immoral to go outside on sundays, perhaps for religious reasons (note: this is purely hypothetical. I'm not inserting any existing religion or society here). Now you think this is a pretty silly idea, perhaps not sharing the same belief system as other members of the community. You really want to go outside on a particular sunday, may even have a brilliant reason for wanting to, but doing so would lose you considerable respect with almost everyone you know and some would even find this act insulting. Do you go outside as you wish, or stay inside as society expects?

Using the same analogy, let us say this act is actually illegal. Would this change your actions?

Differences in personal or social beliefs occur all the time. I'm now talking about two societies or two people who disagree. In terms of personal disagreements - this happens all the time in everyday life. Usually, its very trivial and easily solved. But what on earth do you do when you and someone else have highly polarised views about something important? Who's right? What do you do?

When this happens on a social level, things are even worse. Different societies often have very different ideas about morality, and sadly this often leads to conflict. So often, societies or people will be convinced they're right and so, of course, the other party simply must be wrong. Why?

It all comes down to relativity. It is perfectly possible that certain morals and ideas work perfectly well for a certain society. The western world values democracy, most places regard the death penalty as wrong and corporal punishment equally so. This works. But what happens when countries are found which do not find these ideas to be wrong? Of course, most people would say

"but it's so cruel! They can't be right!"

Well yes, I agree. That's true in our society. But in the other society, it does work. I know, there are hundreds of reasons why we're right, why they're wrong and so on and so on...but I've no doubt many reasons could be found on the other side, too.

That was a somewhat extreme example, I admit. I'm not advocating either course of action through it, merely trying to suggest that neither can be considered definitely right or definitely wrong, whatever your personal views on it. This I would say is true for most differences - both right under the right circumstances and in their respective places. Elsewhere, it's another story.

Social context, I think, is very important to morality. It is perhaps best to act in accordance with the principles laid down by society, however in the eventuality that a person passionately disagrees with these principles, it is up to them whether they choose to act with or against these. If they can't decide on the act, then the consequences may be taken into account regarding both the individual and the influence their action has elsewhere. What will their action mean to others, and what will the consequences for them be?

I say society takes preference because otherwise, actions may cause social disquiet or even harm in more extreme cases. This is not to say people should not act on their own consciences, but that they should consider what the consequences of their actions will be.

Now, why should we be moral? I've attempted to answer the what and how questions, but not really the why. The way I see it, we are social creatures. It is therefore important that we are able to live together. This means there must be some set of rules by which this is made possible without causing undue harm to each other (for no life is more important than another - or is it? My own arguments could be used against me. I'll let you think on that yourselves). Because we are all individuals, morals shall of course be interpreted and so differences of opinion shall arise. This gives us the freedom to guide ourselves in life, because we cannot always check everything with the rules of society before we act (if we did, 9/10ths of our lives would be wasted checking rules or laws). John Stuart Mill (a Utilitarian and liberalist) certainly understood that these differences drove change, and that without them society would stagnate. I tend to agree with his view, and so it seems important to me that differences are respected and tolerated and, if possible, understood.

In conclusion, I would say that difference in inevitable. It is ridiculous to try and bring everyone under a single banner, because there will always be discontent and disagreement, however noble and seemingly perfect that banner is. The most we can do is accept that other moralities, cultures and so on exist side by side with our own cultures, and that we have no more right to impose our beliefs on them than they do on us. It is only in the event that one side threatens the other's way of life that action against them can be legitimately taken.

Right! This has to be my longest blog entry ever (which is saying something). All of what I've said is purely my opinion, and I am not claiming to hold any absolute truth here (indeed, I do not believe there is one). If you passionately disagree, that's fine! Infact, that's excellent! You've at least as much chance of being right as I have, after all.

I find it a bit worrying that I almost started prescribing ways of thinking or acting near the end, when I find myself disliking philosophers who do that. Hmm, yes. Annoying. All of this was also written without any forethought as to what I was going to write, so it may be a bit garbled.

I should also note that it touches on a few sensitive subjects. My intention is not to insult anyone, and if I have done so unknowingly I do apologise.

Finally, I will say that I'm only 17 and haven't even finished my Philosophy A level yet. I'll let you work out the implications of that.

Oh yes, and congratulations on getting this far!