A Moral Manifesto
August, 2005
Fred Tutwiler

man·i·fes·to - a written statement declaring publicly the intentions, motives, or views of its issuer

In looking at what would constitute a manifesto, I found myself coming back to the same question over and over.  What is our “purpose” as human beings?  Since I'm looking at a "moral" manifesto (as opposed to a political one, for example), it's necessary to think from the world of moral philosophy, or ethics. This is quite different from thinking from the world of "morality", since morality is primarily defined by the social and cultural opinions of the times. As such, it changes over time and from place to place. Moral philosophy, on the other hand, is a timeless inquiry into the essence of the being of a human and our responsiblity to ourselves and each other. It is not defined by geography, culture or a page of history. It is influenced by these things, but the root of moral philosophy is somehow greater than all that. This is not a "morality manifesto". It is a moral manifesto, a declaration of my own take on the timeless philosophy of our pursuit of living a morally upright life.

Anyone who has ever engaged in discussions about moral philosophy has probably confronted the idea that context is decisive. By definition, context is “that which surrounds and gives meaning to, something else.” In this case, the “something else” is our sentient existence. To explore morality requires one to explore the abstract, the sub-conscious, i.e., sentience.  Animals and plants don’t experience moral dilemmas, at least as far as we know now. Animals don’t make ethical decisions.  So it is that domain of sentience which separates us from lower life forms, and that houses our ability to articulate moral thinking.  Indeed it is the piece of us that makes morality an issue in the first place.

So, what is the context of that sentience?  Why do we have it?  Is it simply an evolutionary product of millions of years of bicameral thinking?  Does it have no meaning at all, save a survival tool that allows us to prevail over our natural environment? If that were the case, then, in my view, there would be no point whatever to ethical discussions.  If the context of our human conscience is nothing more than an evolutionary skill set, then moral inquiries would be irrelevant, perhaps even indulgent
But if our sentience is not merely a random evolutionary roll of the dice, then it seems there must be a purpose for it – a context inside of which it exists and expands.  And wherever we settle with regards to our purpose, it will inevitably define the nature of our moral “code”. Hence, I keep coming back to the question “What is our purpose?”.

Thus, it occurs to me that any manifesto would directly and indirectly be based upon one’s conclusions about this purpose.  Without offering the full depth and breadth of why I conclude so (I'll discuss that in a future article), I believe that our purpose is to transcend the temporal travail that encompasses us almost from birth and master the full complement of creative, generative power we possess.

But then there is yet another division of thinking to address - QUALITY vs. REPONSIBILITY.   Quality refers to those things – behaviors, traits, values, etc. – that bring forth a degree of excellence in the experience of life.  Responsibility refers to those things/issues/ways-of-being one ought to be responsible for in the course of one’s life.
1 2