The Philosophical and theological perception of man has been present from the beginning. It's an unavoidable question that will be encountered in every person's life. It's in all of us to find our origins – to know where we came from, what we are, what our purpose is, and what is to become of us. It is perhaps for this reason that empirical science exists and expands in our world today. It seeks to comprehend what is real. What is true. While some consider Morality to conveniently fit inside of man's observational field metaphysics, there simply may be more to the picture “...then meets the eye”. If Truth is absolute, it need not fit into man's (or anyone else') full comprehension to be true. It exists independently. While our mind's are a monumental tribute throughout the history of mankind in producing the sophisticated tools that attempt to chart the cosmos, there is ironically something unanimously present in all people.
Every person has a concept of his own being, his own existence. While this may lead no where quick without outside revelation, It leads to a basic general pattern present in all men. This is called the Conscience. This is hard to distinctly place anatomically, just as is the mind being more then the brain. We simply take it on faith that these components of our being are inside of us. Some, conversely, would claim that any theory of these components being non-physical is bogus. Everything has a direct, physical and observable measurement. If this is so, then it would seem man has achieved nearly the full depth of “truth”. And if man has, then plunging forward with scientific advancement is merely an ascetic endeavor – we're just showing off. Grasping to understand these philosophical concepts may not so easily be discovered by the records of ancient philosopher's, self-meditation, or discourse with the well-educated of our day.
If information is received from external sources, where has man received the knowledge he has to create the things he did to, to discover the technicalities he see's? Is it perhaps possible to consider what he has discovered with the methods he has, and the tools he holds is wrong? Or maybe simply incomplete? Morality is defined in many ways in our modern English dictionaries. A compass of discerning right from wrong may be a sufficient definition for this article. It has been corrupted in a more loose vernacular to an object to be owned or possessed: “He gave me morals to follow...”, or “She upheld noble morals...” while it sounds pious, and to some extent that is not bad. But in a more loose form of communication, many word's become synonymous with others – in this case, morals would be confused with virtues. Virtues are a become a lost art in our post-modern age. They remind us of characteristics that are full of passion, of love, generosity, courage, endurance, and patience. Our natural tendency is to fit into one or more of these virtues, even if they are held to our own subjective standards.
Comparing Morality and Ethics
What is the distinguishing factors of morality and ethics? If morality has virtues that are based on an absolute standard, then could ethics have a simpler form of values that are held to a subjective standard? Is there a person alive who would be able to admit to having no moral virtues in his life, and continue on with saying he has no aspiring values either? It is as if the ethics of today has taken the place of morality of the past. In the past, few chose to be atheistic, or agnostic. While not all chose a monotheistic belief system, a some concept of God was established in man's mind. It provided a sense of something greater then man. A sense of objectivity. A sense that everything we see and do is not simply purposeless and void. While benefits of ethics can be seen, are they not external? An ethical decision of a technological advancement puts a sense of supposed peace in the hearts of many that what is being done is not simply just progress for progress sake. It reminds us that we are still human (however that may be defined).
Supremacy over Physics
Even if there is no belief held of something beyond what is seen, there is a tremendous desire to achieve these qualities. Something deep in us defaults to a merit-based lifestyle. To much of this kind of discussion can lead into endless ontological discussion of who and what we are. Yet that subtle evidence that we are aware of to find a deeper meaning towards implies an invisible component. A theological perspective enters into every person's mind at some point in their lives, even if the specific knowledge of a Creator, supreme being, or intelligent designer does not. Does God (Monotheistic) exist, or not? Are there several god's (polytheistic, or is all god (pan-theistic)? Arriving at one of these beliefs is a majorly influential point in a person's life. It's been said that our beliefs determine our actions and character. Evidence of this in history? The citizen's of Roman at one point looked to Caesar as a god-king, to which they were to own their allegiance. It wasn't as lofty as it appears, Rome had left a genuinely theistic religious base in their empire slowly as the empire grew and a desperation for order and control was critical. Rome had taken on a politically-religious system in order to lull the older generation who respected the polymorphic image of man as a god on Earth.
External Results of Internal Causes
While the theological position is considered in regard to our existence, there is a new development in the field of ecology that would consider rationality to extend to all living creatures. This would include not just animals, but even plants, and vegetation. Do plants have virtues? Many this is too much of a stretch, but what about emotions? Can plants feel? There should be discussion raised on what instincts are. We know a robot to have pre-programmed variables to which it is limited in it's function. What is not pre-programmed into it's memory will not happen, because it has not native free will of it's own. What about an animal, with seemingly limitless expression to the multitude of interactions man makes with them? Is the animal acting out of a free will, or an astonishingly vast compilation of expressible options available to it? Is the animal aware of it's own existence, or simply responding to the physical environment it see's around it? Is the animal an advanced biological robot, or a lesser form of human?
When it comes down to it however, the sensual experience is most easily visualized. The physical realm, relying on consistent, dependable laws were present before man discovered them, is the comfort zone of many. Perhaps it is a fear of reaching beyond what cannot explained, or rather a more definite and emphatic conviction that nothing exists beyond what has been discovered. What is ironic is that more is being discovered the farther out into macro space, and the deeper into microbiology at atomic levels. Why is it that man arrogantly thinks that his 3 dimensional empirical perception is the complete essence of all existence? What about the uncharted physical universe? What about the uncharted earthly oceans? Is the conviction to place everything into the theory of physics still at an “optimistic prediction” stage? Is there a chance that external, physical evidence will lead to a greater, broader puzzle much to epic for our neuron-based brains to comprehend? What is the reason behind the existence of man, what proportion of logical scenario's have an effect, with no cause to initiate it?