Morality
“Morality has meaning only when people can choose not to be moral.”
Wait, what?
What is this nonsense?
Most of your reactions will probably be the same after reading the statement written above, but hear me out.
What even is morality?
See, different people understand morality in their own ways.
Kant said morality is about duty, it’s about doing right because it’s right, not just for reward.
Utilitarians said it’s about results, the greatest good for the greatest number.
Nietzsche said morality is just a tool, the weak invented it to control the strong.
Existentialists said morality doesn’t exist unless you create it yourself.
But what is morality for you?
From what I understand, morality is the story humans tell themselves to make sense of the chaos around them.
Something that keeps us from becoming absolute beasts or machines.
But sometimes, when I see people lie, cheat, and betray and then call it survival.
That’s when I think.
Morality is nothing to them, only a story to justify comfort or fear.
What if there was a hero or let’s say an anti-hero (like Homelander or Kira), with absolute power but, in our case, also with absolute morality.
Someone who could fix a country like India, which is drowning in corruption and is filled with citizens who lack basic civic sense?
What will happen then?
A morally correct superhero in a country like India would be both a saviour and a tragedy for us.
Get Devesh’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Because in our country,
the very people who need saving are also the ones who would resist it.
(We’ll talk about this in another article)
But for now, let’s say he fixed India with that absolute power.
He erased corruption, enforced discipline, made officials honest and made citizens care.
If that hero is truly good and moral, incorruptible, selfless and never abuses his power, then the world he creates would seem perfect.
But here’s the paradox,
Even perfect goodness, when enforced on a society, strips away the freedom to be imperfect. And without the freedom to err, humanity stops being moral, it becomes obedient.
“Morality has meaning only when people can choose not to be moral.”
See, now it makes sense, doesn’t it?
Real morality comes from choice.
Let’s see an example,
There are Two Cities. City A & City B.
In City A, people are good because they’re programmed to be, they literally cannot lie, steal, or hurt anyone.
The city is peaceful, efficient, flawless.
In City B, people can lie, they can steal, and they can hurt, but most of them choose not to, they help each other out of empathy, struggle with temptation, and sometimes fail too.
Now, which city is more moral?
Most of you will probably say, “But the result is the same in both cities, right? In the end, both are safe and a good place to live.”
You’re right, the result is the same,
Both cities are peaceful, safe, and “good”.
But the meaning behind that goodness is completely different.
City A looks perfect, but there’s no choice, people there are not good, they’re just incapable of evil.
City B is also good but sometimes messy and imperfect, but every act of kindness and every moment of honesty shown in this city means something, because it was chosen.
Think of it this way,
If a robot saves a child from drowning, it’s a function, a command hard-coded into it.
If a human does it by risking their own life, maybe hesitating but still jumping in, it’s heroism, it’s true morality.
The act is identical, the difference is free will.
And that’s what every philosopher from Kant to Dostoevsky keeps circling back to,
“A world without the freedom to do wrong might look and be peaceful, but it’s not good.
It’s just empty of sin because it’s empty of soul.”
