Why Morality is Key to the Martial Way

In practicing the art of war and peace and resolving oneself to the martial way, the question of morality assumes a central role.  This owes to a practical necessity of the martial artist: the need to control the scope of conflict.  Those warriors not entirely convinced of the morality of their actions fight not only opponents, but themselves.  While engaged in physical or diplomatic conflict, they also wage an internal battle of ethical debate which paralyzes effective, immediate action.  By not establishing moral standards before a battle, they must do so in the heat of the moment, often with weak results.

So what is considered "good?"

Schneevies often define "good" in a cultural relativistic perspective as anything deemed "good" by a given culture.  This standard, though it aspires to objectivity, is a false standard.  One cannot establish an absolute value which rejects all absolute values.  It is an illogical position.  Further, it provides weak justification for action.  No true warrior will fight to the death just because their culture says it is right.  That dubious justification is susceptible to the manipulation of schneevies, who wish to have control over the strong by influencing their standards of action.  Such schneevies become Cultural Marxists, Bible thumping nutjobs, and others who dictate to soldiers why and how to fight without ever fighting themselves.  In actuality, cultural relativism is used as a cover for a schneevie's true morality, described below.

Scumbags often define "good" in an individualistic hedonist sense, where "good" is anything that brings them pleasure on an individual level.  The needs of others in this hedonic calculus are assumed to not even exist, and if they DO exist, their suffering either has no moral significance, or is itself "good" when it serves the pleasure of the hedonist.  These individuals act with strong conviction because they hold their pleasures on a higher moral plane.  It is against these individuals that warriors fight.

So how does the "good" warrior define morality?

Firstly, good and evil are overly rigid categories of moral action.  Moral actions rarely originate from lengthy ethical deliberation.  Often, morality is a matter of intuition, such that the right action is often known prior to any ethical consideration whatsoever.  Also, there are inevitable exceptions to every absolute ethical standard which invalidate all of them, at least in some situations.  Despite the intuitive nature of ethical reasoning, a martial artist participating in the morally ambiguous realm of conflict can benefit from reasoned consideration of ethical standards when 'the right thing' seems unclear.

Another way to conceptualize good and evil is to replace them with "better" and "worse."  This standard of evaluation has the advantage of leaving open the possibility of ethical ambiguity and allowing a warrior to strive for "best," even if exceptions exist in their rationale.

This author, when faced with an ethical conundrum, finds a couple simple perspectives to be crucial for establishing moral standards before battle.

First, to comply with a priori moral principles, one's actions must embody the "good will."  To Immanuel Kant, the "good will" is the only unconditional virtue.  For example, one can possess all other virtues such as cleanliness, obedience, honesty, competence, strength, and intelligence, but these traits will only make one more evil if they help in the murder of innocents.  Therefore, a warrior should first embody the "good will" as a way of life before conflict ever develops.  Those things which are good in an a priori analysis can be universalized in all instances or reversed upon oneself without harm, so, for example, if one kills an intruder for breaking and entering their home, their action is good only to the extent they can accept death as a suitable punishment for ANYONE caught breaking and entering a home, and/or personally accept death as a consequence for breaking and entering the home of another.

Second, in situations where moral "good will" seems debatable, one should weigh the consequences of proposed actions.  In a consequentialist utilitarian analysis, good is defined by those actions which maximize happiness and/or minimize suffering for the greatest number of people.  This simplistic moral calculus is not absolutely applicable due to its support of the collective above the rights of the individual, but it is another tool which can help resolve moral ambiguity.  In the home breaking example, killing an intruder might be considered 'good' in a consequential analysis if the action causes a reduction in home break ins and a greater respect for community private property rights.

This author posits that when an action conforms with both of the above standards, the action is better than one which contradicts one or both standards.

Therefore, a martial artist, to ensure the moral righteousness of their cause, should do the following: 1. Always intend the best for oneself and one's opponents, 2. When possible, avoid causing harm to one's opponents unless the necessity of victory prevents it, and if possible, attempt to leave opponents better off, 3. Never fight for pleasure or value any pleasure derived from battle.

Lastly, it is helpful when fighting "evil" to remember that "evil cannot be conquered in the world.  It can only be resisted in oneself" (Master Po, Kung Fu).