So what is the root of morality? This is a highly debatable subject. Some could believe it to be Nurture, others Nature, or Circumstance. But almost all can agree it can not be pinned to any one single reason. I don’t believe it is any of this. I believe the root of morality is conflict.

Suppose someone is trying to mug you and he is carrying a knife. He lunges at you but you turned around and catch his arm. You twist is around his neck as you go behind him. You can see him reaching into his pocket with the other hand.

You are within dire conflict. The response to this conflict will be a reflection of your moral character. You could,

a) Kill him immediately. Because you know in your heart that he was aiming to kill you. So you must kill him before he gets the chance.

b) Threaten him.  If you start threatening him if he starts moving closer to his pockets he might stop right there and you wont have to hurt him. This is a less cautious approach because you hesitate, and giving him a chance to attack you.

c) Let him go. This is the pacifistic route.  A route that tries to sway others through their actions. It tries to tap into that person’s morale soul and exclaim ‘this is a just way of living’. Even if his assailant assails him, he would have died happy knowing that he did the right thing to do.
But these are all based on preconceived beliefs so conflict wasn’t the root it was their beliefs. And so we come to ask, what is the root of beliefs?  Again conflict.

Say you answered a. Then the matter at hand is what causes this violent outlook? My belief on this subject I derived almost solely from the ‘Tao Te Jing’ written by Lao-Tze.

1. Powerful men are well advised not to use violence,
For Violence has a habit of returning,
Thorns and weeds grow wherever an army goes,    
And lean years follow a great war.
A general is well advised
To achieve nothing more than his orders:
Not to take victory.
Nor to glory, boast or pride himself;
To do what is dictated by necessity,
But not by choice.
For even the strongest force will weaken with time
And then it’s violence will return, and kill it.           

Lao-Tze was a famous sage in China during the time of the ‘Age of Philosophers.’

2. He believed that man should live in accordance to the universe, which endures because it does not live for itself. He worked as a librarian at the court of Chou. When the kingdom shown signs of decay, Lao-Tze left and was never heard from again. But once he arrived at the final gate at the great wall, the gate keeper persuaded him to record the principals of his philosophy for posterity. That was how the ‘Tao Te Ching’ was born.

This way of thinking was very relevant at his time. China was an empire that was growing and in need of knowledge to guide their spirits. So Lao-Tze saw Nature as perfection and the way people should live. He wouldn’t have taken that stance if he didn’t see a problem with the way people lived to begin with. But he found reason, which all began with conflict. This conflict creates his searching for answers which arrive at his ideals of living in accordance to nature, which is a reflection of his morality, which decides his actions. I personally think he would’ve answered c.

But what about in a less immediate situation which still requires some form of morality to go foreword? For instance donating your change to a Salvation Army bell ringer around Christmas time as your leaving a store. Something you don’t pay too much attention to, you just act.

Chances are you don’t value your pocket change very highly. It can be a hassle when paper money is much more convenient and less cumbersome. So as you’re leaving the store from which you have received change you drop it in with maybe a couple ones and whatever you’re not going to miss. You wouldn’t donate if it was Bill Gates holding his hat out begging for change, because he is rich and you know he does not need the money. You give the money to the bell ringer because you value their cause over your cumbersome pocket change.

Well then what of something that is predetermined? Say buying your valentine a gift for Valentines Day.

You know that not giving will make your valentine feel bad, and you know if you were in their shoes you would feel bad as well. It is against how you believe others should be treated. You arrived at these believes through observing other people giving their valentine a gift on Valentine’s Day and that you not doing the same feels morally wrong. This is the conflict, which will cause you to buy a gift. This action reflects your ideal of how others should be treated.

How should others be treated? How shall I like to be treated? This conflict is the source of your morality. This leads to; what you do to ensure this level of treatment and what you think others should do to ensure this level of treatment. The sum of your morality.