Morality sometimes for me is some thing which shivers from prejudices. Interesting concept though it is, farcical in notion but operational in world. At the very core of civilized world lies the concept of morality, The concept of what is right and what is wrong, determined by the powerful forces , but seems to be enforced upon sheep after consensus. Fragile indeed the idea is specially for revolting notions which every now and then try to escape the moral forces which are night and day working for and on the subjugation of reasonable attitudes by defining notions of popular but consensus driven attitudes.What to defy and what to obey , itself is a moral question, see this is the level of penetration of morality inside the human consciousness.Without it the very creation of society seems inimical or impossible. Every act of an individual needs to go through heavy scrutiny from the moral forces , some times internal and sometimes external. Rules and law driven societies enforce moral notions of majority in so called impartial ways, and at times i wish to ask , hw clever are they in maintaining there impartiality. Even the individualistic moral assertions in the current era of individualistic societies suffer a prejudice developed coz of media feeding, like the whole way of life is forced upon the underdeveloped minds so as to generate a society of puppets who think that they are freely developing and swaying pendulums but they fail to get this simple fact that there centre of gravity lies in some one else’s hands.
We decide our acts on the popular notions of morality and any revolting notion is suppressed, for morality is something which lies beyond moral doubts.We decide actions , to be good or bad , and that too on the popular notions of morality which are prehistoric at times and if recent are only incremental changes in the name of revolutionary notions.The act of good , is something that to me, fails to disturb the balance of action and reaction or whose reaction is far more acceptable and compatible to the modern individuals.The act shud not abhor the societal notions which are majorly populist and majority oriented. Bombing so called terrorist organizations for example is certified as some thing in the good of society and the modern world, as it is an imminent danger to the humanity. But the humanity so affected and displaced , tranquilized, mortified into corpses of silent winter , cold and dead by the bombings are collateral damages , morally justified in the name of inevitable price that we have to pay for the change, no matter hw long the dawn of peace can sustain, no matter how many innocent lives it costs , nomatter hw many fathers , mothers and children it took as tolls. but Morallity will justify it , why coz , majority says its the price we have to pay as collateral, Why ?? becoz The power grabbers know things well, why ?? becoz, Changes are full of sorrow and pain, why ??? becoz, thr houses are made up of muds and can be built again?? why ?? becoz , destitute and deprived have no life. they have no inalienable human rights, they are animals needed to be crucified at the door of Inevitable.At times I fail to get that , what is the biasic difference that actually persists among people??? Is it the difference of region, caste, creed, sex, religion or what, that makes affected people lives less precious than ours.?? Hw are they affceted and we remain unaffected , dont u think morality lies in compassion?? I fail to get , hw public morality fails to rise above these meager issues to a height where it can assert right fully the rights of each and every individual, Dont u think every ones life is as inalienable as that of every other one??